Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 30

March 14, 2013

Further Defense of My Use of the Term "Radtrad" / Resulting Personal Attacks from the "Anti-Apologist" Shawn McElhinney

The image “http://www.anarkismo.net/attachments/oct2006/nuclear_explosion.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

For preliminary background, see the first chapter in my recent book on radical "traditionalism." I made some arguments on a semi-public thread and a controversy ensued. I have preserved Shawn's gossipy, calumnious comments (in blue below), made on a public Facebook thread (later removed, without any public retractions), and have replied to them, in the second section below, after the five asterisks.

***
As the author of two books on "traditionalism" and a student of them for 15 years, I am very precise in my own terminology. I know there are many respectable "traditionalists." That is precisely why I use "radtrad" to distinguish them from the mainstream ones: of whom I have several friends. [I provided the link to the chapter in my book on "traditionalism" that deals with definitions]

I disagree about [the definition of] "radical" and I know a little about use of terms for movements, too, having majored in sociology. The "radical traditionalist" is the one who goes too far: they want to "reform" the Church so much that it does become radical almost precisely in the original Luther sense (revolutionary / overturn / uproot / revolt). They are so opposed to liberalism that they go full circle and become one themselves by dissing popes. They start out opposing Protestantism and then adopt key aspects of same (again, dissing popes, dissing Church authority, councils, officially promulgated forms of the Mass, and the Catholic Mind).

Thus, "radical" used here: going to the roots, refers to going to the very roots of Catholic ecclesiology: the papacy, and digging it up. That's not a dis-use of "radical". It's exactly what it means. It can be used more than one way (like most words), but my use is not improper.

What you need to understand, too, is that my definition of "radtrad" is not simply the SSPX or sedevacantist. It encompasses the many who flirt around the edges without technically going over it: people who bitch about the Church constantly and seem to be able to do little else: trashing the OF Mass, Vatican II, and popes, while admitting (how gracious and nuanced) that they are "valid"!!! They want to have it both ways. I've written at great length about this characteristic. I used "quasi-schismatic" in the same sense back in 2002 at the time of my first book. Now I use "radtrad" that way.

[Note added later: "OF" = Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass, also known as the Novus Ordo or Pauline or "New" Mass. "EF" is the Extraordinary Form, or the Tridentine or "Old" Mass. This is the official way now to refer to both.]

Most of those that I call radtrads are not canonically schismatics. They are Catholics in the legal sense. It's also a far larger category (the ones I describe, bitching about and trashing everything in the Church) than sedevacantists or SSPX. Thus, you still have not given me an alternate term that encompasses my larger category. "Radtrad" is in my usage, to the left of SSPX. It doesn't go that far. If I'm talking about SSPX or sedevacantist (both true schismatics), I call them that. But radtrad is a far larger category.

Many (including most "traditionalists" and "radtrads" alike) approach these issues legally or canonically, whereas I approach it as a matter of the spirit of the thing: much like Jesus approached the Pharisees, and Sadducees, too, for that matter, and how Jesus and Paul both reinterpreted and reapplied the Law.

It goes beyond mere legality. It is a divisive, quasi-schismatic spirit. I'm trying to prevent folks from going out into wacko schismatic land.

* * * * *

The following remarks at my expense (colored words) occurred on two public Facebook threads.
To reiterate on the definition of radtrad, I'll quote my own words from my book (link to chapter 1):

I don't have the slightest objection to anyone preferring to attend the Tridentine Mass. I was completely in favor of the 2007 decree from the Holy Father to make that Mass more widely available (that had been my own position since becoming a Catholic in 1990).
I've been attending the only parish in metro Detroit that offered it prior to that time, and have attended the very reverent, traditionally practiced Novus Ordo Latin Mass there since 1991 to the time of writing. This book will consider as “radtrads” those who insist on continually bashing the Pauline “New” Mass (whether they regard it as valid or not) as somehow less than fully Catholic, or doctrinally watered-down: along with insults towards those who prefer it, as second-class Catholics.

And again, later in the chapter:

Radtrads can’t stop bashing and trashing popes, Vatican II, the New Mass, and ecumenism: going as far as they can go without technically crossing over the canonical line if schism.

Catholic apologist Mark Shea writes very perceptively about the terminology issue. For example:]

The basic difference between a so-called "neo-Catholic" and a self-described Traditionalist who labels others "neo-Catholic" is this: A "neo-Catholic" calls himself and the Traditionalist "Catholic" while the Traditionalist calls himself "Traditionalist" and his brother Catholic "Neo-Catholic". It's a term designed by factionalists to marginalize Catholics whose only crime is docility to the teaching of Holy Church. A Catholic will, if the Traditionalist insists, refer to the Traditionalist as a Traditionalist. But that, again, is only due to a) the Traditionalist's aggressive insistence on the factional label and b) the Catholic’s desire to be accommodating. In short, Catholics are disposed to welcome Traditionalists as brother Catholics in good standing with the Church, while the Traditionalist who insists on the label "neo-Catholic" does so in order to insinuate that brother Catholics docile to the post-conciliar Magisterium are not really up to snuff and, indeed, may well be enemies of the Faith. It is only when docile Catholics are on the receiving end of this aggressive contempt that we will sometimes use the term "Rad Trad" to describe the aggressor. But we do not mean that to refer to all self-described Traditionalists. We only mean it to refer to those Traditionalists who attempt to reduce the Faith to their hothouse subculture and to exclude those outside it from the dignity of being hailed as fellow Catholics in full obedience to Holy Church. We do not apply it to those who happen to have Traditionalist sensibilities, but who do not suggest, insinuate or say that Catholics docile to the Magisterium are second-class "neo-Catholics". We recognize that the Church is the home of many kinds of piety and many schools of opinion—Traditionalists among them. [my bolding]

Very well explained there, and exactly how I use the term as well . . . Jimmy Akin hosts a 2005 paper on his website, entitled, "More Rad-Trad Than Thou," written by "SDG" (probably Steven D. Greydanus). The same distinction is drawn that Mark Shea and myself have already pointed out:

You know, in some ways, radical traditionalism — as opposed to a legitimate Catholic traditionalism that merely prefers traditional expressions of the faith but does not reject Vatican II and the contemporary Church — annoys me more than progressivism. Perhaps it is because the progressivists are usually honest enough to admit that they wish to change the doctrines and disciplines of the Church. They are easier to deal with because their agenda is clear. Radical traditionalists, on the other hand, present their discontinuity with Church history and their rejection of the authority of the Church’s leaders as a supposedly Truly Catholic Response to concerns about the admitted difficulties in some human sectors of the modern Church. Anyone who rejects their understanding of the Church and its teachings is not as Catholic as they.

Jimmy Akin himself authored a 2006 article on his site, called, "Overcoming RadTrad Temptations."

Catholic writer Daria Sockey wrote an article, "Rally, Rad-trad Protest, and a Knight," on the Catholic Exchange website on 25 March 2012, referring to our subject matter as "the extreme traditionalist" and "fringe societies" in the article.

Shawn McElhinney Were these persons regular joes or were they claiming more "advanced credentials", . . .? . . . to agitate and create controversy is one way that not a few of the apologetics mentality get attention for themselves and also are better prepared to hawk their wares -either in book sales, donations to their "apostolate", or whatever. There are also those who troll threads for material to gin up controversy for the purposes of attention and cash. A wrestling promoter named Eric Bischoff wrote a book years back called Controversy Creates Cash and he could have had the apologetics movement in mind every bit as much as he did professional wrestling with that title but that is neither here nor there.

Shawn -- with whom I had been friends -- decided to savagely attack my person and motives in 2005 when we disagreed on the morality and justifiability of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked: he for, me against. Since that time, he repeatedly wrote blistering and repeated attacks against my character on his website. I replied at length at the time to the numerous outrageous slanders, but on the urging of a mutual friend (Catholic apologist Dr. Art Sippo), unilaterally removed all my replies, while Shawn decided to keep all of his up. But I did later preserve just a few of the choicer tidbits from his bizarre attacks (see #1 in this "Top Ten" paper), and consider them the worst things ever said about me by anyone online, including even the avalanche of insults from the anti-Catholic Baptist luminary James White.

He has also viciously attacked Karl Keating and other apologists. His garbage remains up to this day on his old site, Rerum Novarum . Just search for my name there and you'll find posts like, "On David Armstrong's Tragic Mental Meltdown": discussing my "pathetic delusions," etc. You get the idea. Here's my absolute favorite of his reams and reams of insults and lies at my expense (I am blessed with no end of belly-splitting laughter over this one, whenever I read it):

. . . your claim to want to dialogue was a sham exactly as I said it was. You should have had the decency to have admitted to it publicly rather than try to pretend that you wanted to dialogue. Furthermore, if you never intended to interact with my arguments, then you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for crying about how soundly I bitchslapped your crap down publicly . . .

Alas, I'm not the only apologist in Shawn's huge three-car garage doghouse. For example, here he is writing about me in boorish and inane fashion, on 10 December 2006:

For one thing, he tries to bring into the picture Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Pat Madrid as if they are necessarily being viewed by me in the same light as I do Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and himself. Secondly, Dave obviously is interested in playing this up in his predictable Jerry Springeresque way . . . Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants . . .

Dave Armstrong['s] . . . apologetics ministry was one of God's tools through which I both reconciled with the Catholic Church and discerned my vocation as a canonist.

. . . if I can offer one piece of advice for anyone who tangles with MS [Mark Shea], it is this: document what happened. Keep copies of all written correspondence either in his comboxes, on your own pages, or whatever and if you can take screenshots for preservation purposes, do that as well. I am glad I kept stuff from years past on this stuff not to relive it but instead to make sure the historical record remains preserved lest folks like him try and play the role of the historical revisionist viz. what actually happened and what he would like to pretend happened.

When I deign to cite Shawn's own words, however, all that flies out the window and he comes back with the old mental illness canard and gripes about things being years old. He has to. This is his modus operandi. It's like a hog scratching his itch. He's gotta do it!

The actual narcissists and glory-seekers out there wouldn't last a month in my field, since what they're about is looking for praise and rapt admiration all the time. That doesn't exactly coincide with apologetics (to vastly understate it)!

Nothing like the facts . . . They sit in my "Idiotic Comments and Attacks" file. Big Deal! All Shawn can do these days is sit on the sidelines and lob imbecilic attacks and flatulent avalanches of words. If he's not going after (with his rah-rah buddies patting him on the back and indulging his sin), he can always flail away at his numerous other targets: Karl Keating, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, the class of apologists as a whole, men, women, human beings, dogs, cats, mice, the ocean; anything on God's green earth will do, as long as it is a target . . .

I mean, its been more than SEVEN YEARS now and he is still going around digging up tidbits from my mothballed weblog from those conflicts that he spins out of context. He has to do that because context on these things is not his friend and deep down, he knows it.

Yes; down deep (at least in my better, most honest moments) I know that Shawn is my overlord and superior in every way: ethically, mentally, intellectually, as a writer, debater, amateur philosopher, political junkie, as a webmaster (with his ten hits a day average that he never managed to break out of), as a father (if he is one), as a sports fan, athlete, cookie-maker, weed-puller, repairer of can openers, you name it: anything and everything! He'd probably even beat me in chess and arm-wrestling. But he can't outlaugh me. When I read his drivel, I laugh and laugh till the cows come home: till my gut hurts; till I cry a bucket . . . I think he missed his calling as a comedian.

All this does is illustrate why I proactively blocked him on FB as soon as I found out he was on here: I have no interest in retreading old ground and being trolled by this person.

Oh, that is great news! Delighted to hear it. This is delicious irony. Shawn sits there attacking and gossiping away in the slander-thread, while if I try to defend myself at all there, my comments are deleted. But I am the troll, you see, and he's pure as the driven snow.

Deb Boy am I clueless. I don't even know who Dave is.

Count your blessings, Deb!

Obviously a lot of people have way too much time on their hands, if all they can manage to do is attack and lie about me. As always (I've been subjected to 17 years of this sort of thing, online), it doesn't do the slightest thing to stop the work I am called to. My argument that brought on all the galaxies of manure and imbecilic sewer scum attacks is still here, intact. And that's all that matters. Who cares about all the other nonsense and verbal diarrhea? Let the nattering nabobs play, pat each other on the back (to rationalize their sin), and pummel away . . .

It was mid-August 2005-Spring of 2006 with flare-ups that summer and fall. I sought to end it in September of 2006 and Dave then sought a "reconciliation" in January 2007 which in retrospect it seems he just used as a ruse to lure me back in and try and get me to affirm his whitewashed version of previous events by default.
Even my attempts at reconciliation are a "ruse" . . . you see the cynical spirit at work here. That is the spirit of the father of lies, the accuser (and I'm not trying to be melodramatic at all; just matter of fact); not of the God of the royal commandment and 1 Corinthians 13. This is not the Spirit of Christ. And this is why reconciliation was impossible, with his unyielding demand that I must admit I am an inveterate and deliberate liar, as his first condition. Once I admit that and bow and kiss his feet, everything's great! Well, hell's gonna freeze over before I will kowtow and admit (just so he can feel smugly superior) I was a liar and scumbag, when it was not the case at all. My big outrage was to merely disagree with the man.
I finally took the emails I wrote to him, edited mentions of him out of them, edited any of his actual words out of them, and structured the sequences into three threads that encapsulated the core problems I had with him and blogged them in the winter and spring of 2007. Those three threads are now required interaction by him if he truly wants a reconciliation or not and by all appearances he does not.
I always did want reconciliation (as I do with anyone with whom I have had a falling-out). I tried everything under the sun: reason, pleading, endless explanations of prior comments and arguments I made that Shawn would relentlessly and cavalierly (not to mention quite pompously and arrogantly) blow off as "grandstanding" or "insincere". Finally, I removed all replies about him and anything about him at all from my blog (except a few places where I cite work of his that had some actual value: that he used to do, once upon a time).
At length, I worked with Dr. Art Sippo, a mutual friend, to try to achieve a breakthrough. He quickly persuaded me to remove the papers, but of course (shock!) Shawn was absolutely inflexible (but I'm the one with the grudge, you see, while his innumerable flatulent attack-papers remain online to this day). Now you can all see how he requires these asinine conditions. Essentially I have to admit that he kicked my butt in the nuclear debate -- which is untrue -- and that he was absolutely right, and I was dead-wrong, or else I am necessarily (by the singular Shawn "logic") dishonest and a liar beyond all doubt. He mocks any and all of my attempts at reconciliation as insincere.

Nothing can be done with him. I mightily tried (far more than most people would have had the patience to do). My conscience is perfectly clear on this. God understands contentious people: that we can't always get along with them, no matter how hard we try. His present resumption of personal attacks at the drop of a hat, without the slightest attempt to hear or interact with my side, is hardly grounds for hope of a reconciliation. I wish the man well. I have no resentment at all (I don't waste time with that in my life). I'm simply passionately responding to nonsense and calumny. May God bless him abundantly in all things.
In light of that and other similar issues with other folks (including sad to say the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus), to say that I have a view of apologetics now as a rule that is lower than my view of prostitution is no small exaggeration. But that is another subject altogether for another time.

I like that! My profession is lower than being a whore. Isn't that a wonderfully edifying thought? Even Fr. Neuhaus wasn't safe from Shawn's self-righteous ire. Now the world's oldest and most disgusting, loathsome professions are not one and the same. It's a split ticket. We apologists are the lowest of the low: cain't get no lower than us'n's!.

But of course ol' Shawn brings no personal or intellectual bias to the present conversation; not at all (and no one could possibly think that!). No! It's all sweetness and light and rock-solid objectivity from our friend. I'm over here degrading myself (on a level lower than the ethics of prostitution) by trying to help folks escape from the prison of radtrad nonsense, but it's all worthless, because I supposedly (like Akin and Shea and others) used one word like a dummy and an ignoramus; and I must be attacked at every turn with lies and calumnies for doing so.

Hell, Dave even edited it to put my name in the title! See what I mean about folks who cannot let things go?

. . . Dave continues to add stuff from this thread in a desperate effort to try and goad responses from us and again courtesy of his selective prooftexting ala the way folks prooftext magisterial texts or even Scripture for their own ends. (Albeit nothing said on this thread here has that sort of status of course!)
But since he is seeing this thread, before you change the settings, I will address this to him personally and say nothing else on this thread in the foreseeable future. Here goes...

Hey Dave, the issue I had with Fr. Neuhaus (God rest his soul!) had NOTHING to do with you whatsoever. It was in the grand scheme of things a minor matter (as virtually all things which involve someone who passes on are) and I let it drop a long time ago -mentioning it only in an aside to Pete on this thread which now I wish I had not. But hey, if you had any sense of honour or decency, you would not kick dirt on the grave of a deceased for the sake of your ego.

That's the problem with someone like you who is not interested in the truth but instead just spinning anything they can into whatever revisionist light best suits their inflated ego. I am thinking of going back to where I reviewed one of his books on Amazon and deleting the review -the thought of saying anything nice about someone who acts this way is frankly something I am starting to regret.

. . . I am through on this thread feeding Dave's massive revisionist ego. I will pray for him that he seeks the help he so badly needs and accept this as a reminder of why Christian unity in general is such a seemingly insurmountable mountain and only by God's grace will it ever occur on this side of the eschaton.

[reply to someone who was mockingly saying they "disagreed" with me; as if no one can ever do so] So you were "Denying The Faith" then,. . .?

Trying to use controversy to create fictitious monsters to then ask for money to "fight the monsters" is part and parcel of the whole schtick. I would actually have loved to be proven wrong on this (and conceivably still could be) but so far, every prediction I made on this whole episode privately has come to pass.

. . . the problem with those who act the way certain parties have been is they lose sympathy where the area of possible misunderstandings are concerned. There is also the issue of objective manifestation vs. subjective intention, something I tried to explain until I was blue in the face to no avail. But as it is apropo here, I will briefly touch on it anew. Essentially, one can say something meaning one intention that if you look at what is said objectively at face value conveys a different meaning altogether. So many problems would not exist if more folks realized that sometimes the way they think they are coming across is not how they actually are. (And of course they would have to look as objectively as they could as to how contextually they come across.) But if you cannot get someone to even consider that they may have run afoul in this area, then you have no hope of ever getting through to them period and that is what [name] has seen in the circumstance she encountered with someone whose name shant be mentioned here.

Flail away, Shawn! God sees everything you are doing . . . . Reply is perfectly futile at this point. The above is more than enough its' own refutation and self-condemnation, for anyone with the slightest acquaintance with New Testament Christian ethics. Shawn would do very well to heed "traditionalist" Kevin Tierney's words (3-20-13), that apply to him in almost every little detail:

The Internet can be a very edifying realm where individuals exchange ideas and make things better. It can also be a place of nothing but urine and vinegar, where egotists obsess about things said almost ten years ago as if they are fresh battles, and portray even the smallest of disagreements as lies and willful distortions of the highest order. Everyone loves the former, and most (except those who thrive on urine and vinegar as a way to generate traffic or sometimes revenue) avoid the latter.

I heartily concur with Shawn's statement on his Twitter page (3-17-13):

There are many things good about getting older (and a few not-so-good) but #1 on the good list: you care a lot less about what others think!

Thank heavens, I learned this years ago. If I hadn't, the likes of Slash-and-Burn Shawn and an army of additional irrational, facts- and logic-challenged critics would have easily drummed me out of apologetics a long time ago (never to look or go back again). Fortunately, I didn't take up this vocation to win a popularity contest in the first place (or to become rich: another apparent misconception of many: at least in my case).

Finally, in a true breath of fresh air and classy act, Pete Vere, who had been in the thread all along and never participated in the mudbath and shark attack against me, stood up strongly for me. Thanks so much to Pete. It's so encouraging to see someone have the courage to rise to Christian charity (which ought to be normative rather than dodo bird rare) in such a poisoned atmosphere. I'm delighted to be able to end on this positive note (and many thanks to readers for enduring the previous laborious tedium). Here is what he wrote:

. . . I actually think this a positive sign of how far things have evolved in the Indult / EF in terms of returning to the heart of the Church. Twenty years ago, as traditionalists loyal to Rome, we took our allies wherever we could find them because we had so few. And to his credit, Dave during those early years was a valuable ally, who unlike so many other conservative NO [Novus Ordo] types in the apologetics movement at that time, not only did not trash us, but actually stood up for us.

I also recall Dave taking lots of flack [some things never change!] from both conservative NO types and rad trads for standing up for us, so I can understand why he appears sensitive to the charge he was lumping together all trads as radical. I also understand [so-and-so's] sensitivity to the term radtrad, given that the term is often used outside its original coinage as an epithet against all trads.

I just don't believe that the latter was how Dave intended to use the term. [quite correct, as I have explained at length, and numerous times] Not only does he deny lumping together all trads as radical, but to do so would be inconsistent with his past support of trads loyal to the Holy See. [Exactly; as well as my own worship experience of 22 years of the Latin Mass and support all those years for wider freedom to attend the Tridentine Mass]

So I kinda see this as one of those differences between paleo-trads like myself (and people like Dave who supported us back in the day) and neo-trads like Kevin [Tierney] . . . who came about after the term "radtrad" had morphed from its original meaning.

Regarding Dave's use of the term "radtrad" - here again, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with his definition and/or usage of the term, I did not feel that he was directing the term toward [name] or any other trad participating in the discussion here. Which is why I find the ensuing blowup unfortunate. As far as his definition of the term, I find it interesting how the term has expanded and morphed since I first coined it. But that was due to several people and not just Dave.

Basically, in the old sandbox of traddyland way back when, I was just looking for something to counter the term "indulterer" (as I have repeated ad nauseum). I think it is fair, especially after the radtrads introduced the epithet "neo-Catholic" into the apologetics lexicon - which has also been picked up by some well-meaning EF types, including a priest friend of mine (former SSPX turned EF) who I laid into quite strongly after he used the term "neo-Catholic" in my presence. That being said, I do think the term "radtrad" is becoming less relevant as EF Mass centres become EF parishes, which has a stabilizing and moderating effect on trads. Even the SSPX is going down this road today.

[Note: Catholic writer Sandra Miesel also claimed credit for coining radtrad, in a thread on one of Amy Welborn's sites. So it looks like it was either her or Pete Vere who originated it (see another paper about its origin and continued usage). I've only used it since 2008. Before that, I used my own coined term, quasi-schismatic, to denote extreme, radical, fringe, exclusivistic "traditionalists" with all the usual attitudinal problems associated with this sort of mentality, that goes back to early separatist, rigorous, or purist sects like the Donatists, Montanists, Old Catholics, etc]

[see also the Facebook thread where this paper is discussed]

Latest revision: 1 April 2013.

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 14, 2013 10:19

Further Defense of My Use of the Term "Radtrad" / Resulting Personal Attacks from Shawn McElhinney and Other Usual Suspects

For preliminary background, see the first chapter in my recent book on radical "traditionalism." I made some arguments on a semi-public thread and a controversy ensued. I have preserved some of the gossipy, calumnious comments made on a public Facebook thread, and have replied to them, in the second section below, after the five asterisks.

***
As the author of two books on "traditionalism" and a student of them for 15 years, I am very precise in my own terminology. I know there are many respectable "traditionalists." That is precisely why I use "radtrad" to distinguish them from the mainstream ones: of whom I have several friends. [I provided the link to the chapter in my book on "traditionalism" that deals with definitions]

I disagree about [the definition of] "radical" and I know a little about use of terms for movements, too, having majored in sociology. The "radical traditionalist" is the one who goes too far: they want to "reform" the Church so much that it does become radical almost precisely in the original Luther sense (revolutionary / overturn / uproot / revolt). They are so opposed to liberalism that they go full circle and become one themselves by dissing popes. They start out opposing Protestantism and then adopt key aspects of same (again, dissing popes, dissing Church authority, councils, officially promulgated forms of the Mass, and the Catholic Mind).

Thus, "radical" used here: going to the roots, refers to going to the very roots of Catholic ecclesiology: the papacy, and digging it up. That's not a dis-use of "radical". It's exactly what it means. It can be used more than one way (like most words), but my use is not improper.

What you need to understand, too, is that my definition of "radtrad" is not simply the SSPX or sedevacantist. It encompasses the many who flirt around the edges without technically going over it: people who bitch about the Church constantly and seem to be able to do little else: trashing the OF Mass, Vatican II, and popes, while admitting (how gracious and nuanced) that they are "valid"!!! They want to have it both ways. I've written at great length about this characteristic. I used "quasi-schismatic" in the same sense back in 2002 at the time of my first book. Now I use "radtrad" that way.

[Note added later: "OF" = Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass, also known as the Novus Ordo or Pauline or "New" Mass. "EF" is the Extraordinary Form, or the Tridentine or "Old" Mass. This is the official way now to refer to both.]

Most of those that I call radtrads are not canonically schismatics. They are Catholics in the legal sense. It's also a far larger category (the ones I describe, bitching about and trashing everything in the Church) than sedevacantists or SSPX. Thus, you still have not given me an alternate term that encompasses my larger category. "Radtrad" is in my usage, to the left of SSPX. It doesn't go that far. If I'm talking about SSPX or sedevacantist (both true schismatics), I call them that. But radtrad is a far larger category.

Many (including most "traditionalists" and "radtrads" alike) approach these issues legally or canonically, whereas I approach it as a matter of the spirit of the thing: much like Jesus approached the Pharisees, and Sadducees, too, for that matter, and how Jesus and Paul both reinterpreted and reapplied the Law.

It goes beyond mere legality. It is a divisive, quasi-schismatic spirit. I'm trying to prevent folks from going out into wacko schismatic land.

* * * * *

The following remarks at my expense (colored words) occurred on two public Facebook threads.
To reiterate on the definition of radtrad, I'll quote my own words from my book (link to chapter 1):

I don't have the slightest objection to anyone preferring to attend the Tridentine Mass. I was completely in favor of the 2007 decree from the Holy Father to make that Mass more widely available (that had been my own position since becoming a Catholic in 1990).
I've been attending the only parish in metro Detroit that offered it prior to that time, and have attended the very reverent, traditionally practiced Novus Ordo Latin Mass there since 1991 to the time of writing. This book will consider as “radtrads” those who insist on continually bashing the Pauline “New” Mass (whether they regard it as valid or not) as somehow less than fully Catholic, or doctrinally watered-down: along with insults towards those who prefer it, as second-class Catholics.

And again, later in the chapter:

Radtrads can’t stop bashing and trashing popes, Vatican II, the New Mass, and ecumenism: going as far as they can go without technically crossing over the canonical line if schism.

Catholic apologist Mark Shea writes very perceptively about the terminology issue. For example:]

The basic difference between a so-called "neo-Catholic" and a self-described Traditionalist who labels others "neo-Catholic" is this: A "neo-Catholic" calls himself and the Traditionalist "Catholic" while the Traditionalist calls himself "Traditionalist" and his brother Catholic "Neo-Catholic". It's a term designed by factionalists to marginalize Catholics whose only crime is docility to the teaching of Holy Church. A Catholic will, if the Traditionalist insists, refer to the Traditionalist as a Traditionalist. But that, again, is only due to a) the Traditionalist's aggressive insistence on the factional label and b) the Catholic’s desire to be accommodating. In short, Catholics are disposed to welcome Traditionalists as brother Catholics in good standing with the Church, while the Traditionalist who insists on the label "neo-Catholic" does so in order to insinuate that brother Catholics docile to the post-conciliar Magisterium are not really up to snuff and, indeed, may well be enemies of the Faith. It is only when docile Catholics are on the receiving end of this aggressive contempt that we will sometimes use the term "Rad Trad" to describe the aggressor. But we do not mean that to refer to all self-described Traditionalists. We only mean it to refer to those Traditionalists who attempt to reduce the Faith to their hothouse subculture and to exclude those outside it from the dignity of being hailed as fellow Catholics in full obedience to Holy Church. We do not apply it to those who happen to have Traditionalist sensibilities, but who do not suggest, insinuate or say that Catholics docile to the Magisterium are second-class "neo-Catholics". We recognize that the Church is the home of many kinds of piety and many schools of opinion—Traditionalists among them. [my bolding]

You know, in some ways, radical traditionalism — as opposed to a legitimate Catholic traditionalism that merely prefers traditional expressions of the faith but does not reject Vatican II and the contemporary Church — annoys me more than progressivism. Perhaps it is because the progressivists are usually honest enough to admit that they wish to change the doctrines and disciplines of the Church. They are easier to deal with because their agenda is clear. Radical traditionalists, on the other hand, present their discontinuity with Church history and their rejection of the authority of the Church’s leaders as a supposedly Truly Catholic Response to concerns about the admitted difficulties in some human sectors of the modern Church. Anyone who rejects their understanding of the Church and its teachings is not as Catholic as they.

Jimmy Akin himself authored a 2006 article on his site, called, "Overcoming RadTrad Temptations."

Catholic writer Daria Sockey wrote an article, "Rally, Rad-trad Protest, and a Knight," on the Catholic Exchange website on 25 March 2012, referring to our subject matter as "the extreme traditionalist" and "fringe societies" in the article.

Shawn McElhinney Were these persons regular joes or were they claiming more "advanced credentials", . . .? . . . to agitate and create controversy is one way that not a few of the apologetics mentality get attention for themselves and also are better prepared to hawk their wares -either in book sales, donations to their "apostolate", or whatever. There are also those who troll threads for material to gin up controversy for the purposes of attention and cash. A wrestling promoter named Eric Bischoff wrote a book years back called "Controversy Creates Cash" and he could have had the apologetics movement in mind every bit as much as he did professional wrestling with that title but that is neither here nor there.

Shawn -- with whom I had been friends -- decided to savagely attack my person and motives in 2005 when we disagreed on the morality and justifiability of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked: he for, me against. Since that time, he repeatedly wrote blistering and repeated attacks against my character on his website. I replied at length at the time to the numerous outrageous slanders, but on the urging of a mutual friend (Catholic apologist Dr. Art Sippo), unilaterally removed all my replies, while Shawn decided to keep all of his up. But I did later preserve just a few of the choicer tidbits from his bizarre attacks (see #1 in this "Top Ten" paper), and consider them the worst things ever said about me by anyone online, including the avalanche of insults from James White.

He has also viciously attacked Karl Keating and other apologists. His garbage remains up to this day on his old site, Rerum Novarum . Just search for my name there and you'll find posts like, "On David Armstrong's Tragic Mental Meltdown": discussing my "pathetic delusions," etc. You get the idea. Here's my absolute favorite of his reams and reams of insults and lies at my expense (I am blessed with no end of belly-splitting laughter over this one, whenever I read it):

. . . your claim to want to dialogue was a sham exactly as I said it was. You should have had the decency to have admitted to it publicly rather than try to pretend that you wanted to dialogue. Furthermore, if you never intended to interact with my arguments, then you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for crying about how soundly I bitchslapped your crap down publicly . . .

Alas, I'm not the only apologist in Shawn's huge three-car garage doghouse. For example, here he is writing about me in his usual boorish and inane fashion, on 10 December 2006:

For one thing, he tries to bring into the picture Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Pat Madrid as if they are necessarily being viewed by me in the same light as I do Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and himself. Secondly, Dave obviously is interested in playing this up in his predictable Jerry Springeresque way . . . Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants . . .

All friends of mine: all men I greatly admire . . . but for some reason Keating, Akin, and Shea are in Shawn's doghouse with yours truly (honored to be in there with 'em!), while the other three manage to escape it. What's the huge difference? Well, none, really (all three of the "good guys" have given very glowing reviews of my work, by the way), except whether ol' Shawn grants them his Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval or not! As if anyone cares in the first place. . .!

Not many cared at all about Shawn's endless, War and Peace pontifications, as he consistently used to get about ten readers per day, average, on his site. But no doubt he would say that this was because his sublime profundities were well beyond the grasp of the unwashed masses of ignorant peasantry. At least he had the eventual sense to shut the thing down. In past years (before all he could do was rant against me and other apologists), he actually did some valuable work, especially about radtrad errors: some of which I still cite, despite all.

Kevin M. Tierney It is good to see my "friend" living in Melvindale is still treating his brother Catholics who love the Latin Mass like they are the enemy. Sometimes you want a change, but the old hits are lovely.

Kevin is another guy originally friendly, who turned on me quite dramatically in roughly the same period: 2005 or so. He wrote long, absurd posts about how I supposedly am what is called an "integrist" and that I think the pope is infallible in regard to the color of his socks, weather reports, and what side of the bed to get out of, and can never ever ever be criticized for even the teensiest weensiest thing!: none of which was ever remotely true at any time. I had long since had papers on my site explaining how there are times when popes were opposed, and should have been (such as by St. Catherine, St. Francis, and St. Dominic). I also differed with popes on the War in Iraq and (just a little) on the death penalty.

All to no avail . . . I explained all this at length to Kevin, several times, and it was perfectly useless (ever have "dialogues" like that?). Now when he hears a lie about me, he immediately believes it and parrots it, without the slightest attempt to check out the facts for himself. This is the exact opposite of the truth. I have attended Latin Mass myself for 22 years, and have always advocated Catholics having freedom to attend the Pauline Latin Mass (my preference) and also the Tridentine Mass, that my own parish offers and that I have attended. In 2011 I replied to one of his many attacks on apologetics and apologists.

Shawn McElhinney Well Kevin, in the words of those great western philosophers The Who: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

And Shawn is the same old Shawn: acting as usual, like (well, you fill in the blanks) . . .

Kevin M. Tierney Just take comfort that Dave don't want to tangle with those who punch back without prejudice.

Right. Everyone knows how utterly fearful I am of one-on-one debate. That's why I have about 700 debates posted online, because I am scared to death of them. I guess that's why I once did a talk (in person) with sixteen atheists and agnostics: me being the only theist (let alone Catholic) in the room. It's obviously the reason why I have been on national radio shows (Catholic Answers twice), answering questions live, with no idea what they might be. This sort of abject fear led me to debate James White spontaneously one night in his chat room, or take on Matt Slick of CARM fame, or engage anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer in hostile territory at CARM, debating whether the Church Fathers believed in sola Scriptura. He did so poorly that he split even before it was halfway done. . Who could doubt it?

What Kevin doesn't get is that people have no time for folks like him who specialize in withering personal attacks, with all sorts of goofy, outrageous speculations about supposed nefarious motives. The private letters he used to send me were some of the most amazing spectacles of personal attack I have ever seen in my life: even surpassing Shawn McElhinney, who is virtually a "master" of highly descriptive and colorful ad hominem vitriol. He expects me to waste much time with him? Even so, since he wants to make this dumb remark, it should be noted that I did "tangle" with him in 2011, as I had already noted above. Here are the sorts of idiotic comments that Kevin (then all of 21 but wise far beyond his years) was making back in 2003 (right from his own site; the links still work at Internet Archive):

The view that Vatican II might not have been prudent, but indeed her reforms have caused more harm than good is not an obscure argument, but an argument that has over 40 years gained acceptance, to where now even mainstream publications are willing to admit this. (11-18-03)

Of course, since noone really knows what Vatican II taught, or where Vatican II taught something dogmatically not taught before, noone really knows what to give assent to, other than that which was already taught before in Tradition. is there something new we must give assent to? . . . I just ask him to please be consistent, if he's going to say we're guilty of "classifying forms of Catholicism" when attacking Neo-Catholicism, I will not allow him to do the same. (11-20-03)

Everything goes, as long as you laud Vatican II, and wish no real restoration of the Traditional Mass. (12-5-03)

Kevin went after Blessed John Paul the Great:

There are many who proclaim that our current Pontiff, His Holiness John Paul II, has been the greatest Pope of the 20th century, if not of all time. A Pope's job is to protect the flock, and be a firm guard against novelty, binding the Church to the Deposit of Faith. I am in no way uncharitable in saying that the current Pontificate has failed drastically on both counts. . . . all too many times we have seen the compromising of the Churches traditions to that of the world. . . . to call him "John Paul the Great" after he stood over the gravest apostasy since the Arian crisis, I believe is insulting to those who truly have the name of Great, such as St. Leo the Great and St. Gregory the Great, as well as truly holy pontiffs such as Pius V and Pius X. (7-31-03)

He was ahead of the curve, attacking and lecturing Pope Benedict XVI even before he became pope:

Ratzinger then talks about how since Vatican II, we now have a minority that "renews the world." With all due respect, there cannot be a larger disconnect from reality! The world has gone(and continues to go at breathtaking speed) to hell in a handbasket, so the Catholics are not "renewing the world." Ratzinger, being a European, should recognize this, as Europe will not even recognize any Christian heritage, much less a Catholic one. . . . The only Christians that are "renewing the world" are certainly not following that which is Vatican II. (8-10-04)

Same old same old from the radtrads, of which Kevin was then a proud member (now he is much more respectable; join the crowd, Kevin!). I was fighting these errors already with my first book on the topic, completed in 2002. I tried to reason with him and got back nothing but vitriol and juvenile self-importance.

After this 2011 exchange, I went to Kevin's site to post some comments (that can be read in the paper), and he deleted them. Yet he wants to debate with me now? Sorry, Kevin. I don't waste time with certain folks. You can pretend all you like that this is because of fear or inability. That's always the reply when someone is turned down for debate. It doesn't faze me in the slightest. Your latest comments and participation in the lowest form of gossip prove quite adequately to me that I shouldn't waste any further time with you. Even this documentation was a waste of time, but people have to see it to believe it. They need to know the sort of animus that exists in the people who are involved in the current mud-throwing fiasco. I didn't seek this . . .

Napoleon de Ocampo First of all the term "radtrad " is like an attempt at being "cool", and used by some who are either too old to be cool or just trying to put others down so they can feel good about themselves... insecurity...

Wonderfully ridiculous attribution of personal motives there, with ultra-absurd "analysis." That's the name of the game in these gossip / calumny threads!

I prefer the Extraordinary Form ... I noticed those that use that term are usually eucharistic ministers or have some role in the mass... anybody who has the need to have a role in the liturgy to feel important need to rethink their faith.....

I love this! I have written papers about the widespread abuse of eucharistic ministers. I have argued with priests, saying that I refuse to receive Holy Communion from a eucharistic minister because the priest alone is the alter Christus. We don't have them at all at our parish (I acknowledge that the Church permits them for large crowds, but this is widely abused). So nice try, but no cigar (not even a fake one).

It's called prayer, ... that's our participation and God hears us and that's all that counts.... I have been unfriended by so many, called a "radtrad" by some immature Eucharistic minister who prefers recieving communion in the hand....their over-participation is a call for attention...

1. I don't call him that, knowing what little I know. He just likes the Tridentine Mass. Good for him. I think it's wonderful, too, and want to see it widely practiced.

2. I already commented on eucharistic ministers.

3. I always receive on the tongue, kneeling, from the priest, as we do at our parish (with kneeling and contemplation and worship after I return to my seat). I've done this for 22 years at my parish: St. Joseph's: the most beautiful building in Detroit (German Gothic Revival), for my money.

4. I do, however, defend communion in the hand as not inherently irreverential (though, I agree, often in practice), since the early Church did it for 6-9 centuries, depending on location. St. Augustine, for example, gave communion in the hand to standing recipients, who held their hands exactly in the manner that is done today.

Shawn McElhinney One exception to that rule Kevin: if he has a slew of yesman amigos to help him with his dirty work. He does not like one on one contact with someone who can throw real punches and expose his glass jaw, that's for sure.

This silliness was dealt with above. And we've seen how Shawn "argues" above, too. He's the very last person to be lecturing anyone about how to engage in calm, rational, constructive (minimally ethical and charitable) argumentation. I would send my three sons to a rabid hedgehog in heat to learn how to dialogue before I would send them to Shawn.

. . . this was just another example of Dave wading onto a thread and subject he did not know as much about as he tried to pretend and could not admit that lest he lose face. Saimo-saimo with The Venerrrrablleeee Daaaaaviiiiid basically but I digress

So now I don't know anything about "traditionalism." That's odd, since Pete Vere (canon lawer and co-author with Pat Madrid of a book on the topic) is also participating in these discussions and (to his eternal credit) being very classy: refusing to indulge in the attacks. It's tough to be neutral like Switzerland but Pete is managing to pull it off. Kudos! He is friends with all of them over there, and they obviously respect him.

Pete asked me around 2003-2004 or so to come work and live at the FSSP place where he was (somewhere in Pennsylvania). It was being very seriously considered. Isn't that strange? He must have thought I knew something about the topic: had some sort of qualification. Why, he even credited me with playing some part in his own departure from his former ways, and his very vocation, writing:

Dave Armstrong['s] . . . apologetics ministry was one of God's tools through which I both reconciled with the Catholic Church and discerned my vocation as a canonist.

Now, that is quite a feat, to have managed to persuade someone out of schism or semi-schism (wherever he was; SSPX at one point), while not having much of a knowledge at all about the subject (which Shawn pontificates is the case, even today). If anyone can figure how that can be, please let me know pronto. My brain can't wrap itself around it, much as I try.

I dare say that Shawn himself used to be quite effusive in his praise of my apologetics till he and I disagreed on nuclear war and whether incinerating 100,000 civilians is right in line with Catholic just war ethics or not. I'm almost positive that would have included my work in critique of the radtrads.

Kevin M. Tierney I don't want to dog on him too much. He's a gifted guy who in his own area knows his stuff.

Good for Kevin: a rare bit of charity. And I would actually say the same about him, too, despite his manifest shortcomings that are evident again in this thread.

But he still isn't an expert on traditionalists. If he wanted to know how traditionalists really thought, he could always have taken a drive down to the other parish in the cluster where guys like me were hanging out, and we would've set him straight.

No thanks; I respectfully decline. I would much sooner go to Pete Vere, who has written a book on the topic, as I have (two), and can actually engage in civil discussion, minus all the vitriol and ad hominem. I have many mainstream "traditionalist" friends: folks like David Palm and Ben Douglass and others. Many (quite a number, actually) follow my blog and Facebook page. I have many, many Eastern Catholic friends, too. Kevin has never taken the trouble to bother to become my friend in the first place, and that is generally required for any good dialogue to take place, per Plato and Socrates (as I have often noted). And what he is saying and rah-rahing in this thread is not exactly designed to make me desire to be his friend now, at this late date.

Isn't it interesting, too, that I have the most cordial, trouble-free relations (including phone conversations) with someone like Tracy Tucciarone, who is one of the owners of the influential Fish Eater's "traditionalist" forum. They run me down there, too (the sky would fall if I weren't attacked in all the usual quarters), but she and I have normal, mutually respectful discussions. So I don't need lectures about personal contact with mainstream "traditionalists": certainly not from Kevin Tierney, with all the pathetic baggage and fiery venom he brings: that have gone down in the past.

Napoleon de Ocampo I'm very honest with some people who are hostile to the EF... People are not stupid, they are lazy.... in the EF, one have to follow the mass through a missal, you cannot sit there and daydream like what some do in th OF .... a little judgemental .... someone said to me that the missal is expensive... yes, but those complaining seem to have no problem buying IPads, IPhones and all the I products .... in my experience with complainers it's a matter of they just don't like it or too lazy to follow or learn.... if that's the case, leave us alone.... we don't attack people who prefer the OF....

No need to further rebut Napoleon at this point. His posts are plainly self-refuting.

Miguel Agustin Livas Escobedo I've always had my reservations about the man though I've never dealt with him. I will pray for you.

Timothy J O'Brien The fact that he's gone on and on on his wall about this and then over to his blog is embarrassing (regardless of where the fault lies). Imagine a non-Catholic wandering onto that blog and is treated to that as his/her first impression. It looks very bad. I just can't believe how he cannot let it go.

Shawn McElhinney . . . did I not tell you . . . that Dave would find a way of bringing me into the mix if he could?

Shawn started gossiping about me as soon as he had opportunity to do so, in one of the attack threads. But if I dare respond to his lies, that's me trying to drag him into the conflict, and somehow being paranoid / mentally ill / contentious [or insert chosen alternate epithet] . . . this is classic Shawn polemics. This is how cynical revisionism and creation of fairy tales proceed: urinating all over the actual facts of the matter, which are plain as day.

I doubt I have said one word to him in about six years but he is STILL smarting over getting his ass handed to him back in 2005 and 2006 when he bit off more than he could chew with me.

Humility or truth-telling about his own deficiencies was never one of Shawn's strong points . . . I sort of suspect it won't be, either, for some time to come.

I am no psychologist but Dave sure shows symptoms of NPD in the way he reacts to things and the way he cannot let anything drop.

Oh, of course. No attacks on me would be complete without personality / mental analysis. "NPD" is "Narcissistic Personality Disorder." This is the strictly comedic and entertaining aspect of otherwise tedious and ultra-booring ad hominem attacks. The anti-Catholics love to do the same thing (this is one of their favorite slanders; lacking any rational arguments), and Shawn will readily use any lie from their playbook, on the old principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend." Pray for the man. One can only pity one who feels the need to stoop so low.

It's real simple, folks; makes perfect sense; nothing mentally ill about it at all. I document because people (ones who want to clash with me) have a tendency to revise the past. I know this because it has happened over and over: much first-hand experience. If I didn't keep people's words (the ones who feel led to personally attack me), they would simply spin them as if they were no big deal. After all, a person that is willing to shamelessly lie about another has no compunction about lying about the lies later on, to cover their own tails and present themselves in a saintly (or at least situationally faultless) light that never was the case.

I don't give it a moment's thought otherwise. If the thing rears its ugly head again, I have the documentation. And oh, how people hate that!!! Thus, when I deign to cite Shawn's own words, he comes back with the old mental illness canard. He has to. This is his modus operandi. It's like a hog scratching his itch. He's gotta do it!

Nothing like the facts . . . They sit in my "Idiotic Comments and Attacks" file. Big Deal! If Shawn had ever had any actual influence with his flatulent avalanche of words, he would have been as massively attacked as I have been, too. But since he hasn't, all he can do is sit on the sidelines and partake of the imbecilic attacks. If he doesn't have me to go after, he can flail away at his numerous other targets: Karl Keating, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, the class of apologists as a whole, men, women, human beings, dogs, cats, mice; anything on God's green earth will do, as long as it is a target . . .

I mean, its been more than SEVEN YEARS now and he is still going around digging up tidbits from my mothballed weblog from those conflicts that he spins out of context. He has to do that because context on these things is not his friend and deep down, he knows it.

Yes; down deep (at least in my better, most honest moments) I know that Shawn is my overlord and superior in every way: ethically, mentally, intellectually, as a writer, debater, amateur philosopher, political junkie, as a webmaster (with his ten hits a day average that he never managed to break out of), as a father (if he is one), as a sports fan, athlete, cookie-maker, weed-puller, repairer of can openers, you name it: anything and everything! He'd probably even beat me in chess and arm-wrestling. But he can't outlaugh me. When I read his drivel, I laugh and laugh till the cows come home: till my gut hurts; till I cry a bucket . . . I think he missed his calling as a comedian.

All this does is illustrate why I proactively blocked him on FB as soon as I found out he was on here: I have no interest in retreading old ground and being trolled by this person.

Oh, that is great news! Delighted to hear it.

Deb Boy am I clueless. I don't even know who Dave is.

Count your blessings, Deb!

Kevin M. Tierney This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend, some people started posting not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting forever just because.....

Have at it! Obviously a lot of people have way too much time on their hands, if all they can manage to do is attack and lie about me. As always (I've been subjected to 17 years of this sort of thing, online), it doesn't do the slightest thing to stop the work I am called to. I have removed an avalanche of car manure that I had on this post previously, but my argument that brought on all the galaxies of manure and imbecilic sewer scum attacks is still here, intact. And that's all that matters. Who cares about all the other nonsense and verbal diarrhea? Let the nattering nabobs play and pummel away . . .
Shawn McElhinney It was mid-August 2005-Spring of 2006 with flare-ups that summer and fall. I sought to end it in September of 2006 and Dave then sought a "reconciliation" in January 2007 which in retrospect it seems he just used as a ruse to lure me back in and try and get me to affirm his whitewashed version of previous events by default.
Even my attempts at reconciliation are a "ruse" . . . you see the cynical spirit at work here. That is the spirit of the father of lies, the accuser (and I'm not trying to be melodramatic; just matter of fact); not of the God of the royal commandment and 1 Corinthians 13. This is not the Spirit of Christ. And this is why reconciliation was impossible, with his unyielding demand that I must admit I am an inveterate and deliberate liar, as his first condition. Once I admit that and bow and kiss his feet, everything's great!
I finally took the emails I wrote to him, edited mentions of him out of them, edited any of his actual words out of them, and structured the sequences into three threads that encapsulated the core problems I had with him and blogged them in the winter and spring of 2007. Those three threads are now required interaction by him if he truly wants a reconciliation or not and by all appearances he does not.
I always did want reconciliation (as I do with anyone with whom I have had a falling-out). I tried everything under the sun: reason, pleading, endless explanations of prior comments and arguments I made that Shawn would relentlessly and cavalierly (not to mention quite pompously and arrogantly) blow off as "grandstanding" or "insincere". Finally, I removed all replies about him and anything about him at all from my blog (except a few places where I cite work of his that had some actual value, that he used to do).
At length, I worked with Dr. Art Sippo, a mutual friend, to try to achieve a breakthrough. He persuaded me to remove the papers, but of course (shock!) Shawn was absolutely inflexible (but I'm the one with the grudge, you see, while his flatulent attack-papers remain online to this day). Now you can all see how he requires these asinine conditions (essentially I have to admit that he kicked my butt in the nuclear debate -- which is untrue -- and that he was absolutely right, and I was dead-wrong, or else I am necessarily [by the singular Shawn "logic"] dishonest and a liar beyond all doubt), and mocks my attempts at reconciliation as an insincere ruse.

Nothing can be done with him. I mightily tried (far more than most people would have had the patience to do). My conscience is perfectly clear on this. God understands contentious people: that we can't always get along with them, no matter how hard we try. His present resumption of personal attacks at the drop of a hat, without the slightest attempt to hear or interact with my side, is hardly grounds for hope of a reconciliation. I wish the man well. I have no resentment at all (I don't waste time with that in my life). I'm simply passionately responding to nonsense and calumny. May God bless him abundantly in all things.
In light of that and other similar issues with other folks (including sad to say the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus), to say that I have a view of apologetics now as a rule that is lower than my view of prostitution is no small exaggeration. But that is another subject altogether for another time.

I like that! My profession is lower than being a whore. Isn't that a wonderfully edifying thought? Even Fr. Neuhaus isn't safe from Shawn's self-righteous ire. Now the world's oldest and most disgusting, loathsome professions are not one and the same. It's a split ticket. We apologists are the lowest of the low: cain't get no lower than us'n's!.

But of course ol' Shawn brings no personal or intellectual bias to the present conversation; not at all (and no one could possibly think that!). No! It's all sweetness and light and rock-solid objectivity from our friend. I'm over here whoring and degrading myself by trying to help folks escape from the prison of radtrad nonsense, but it's all worthless (because I supposedly [like Akin and Shea and others] used one word like a dummy and an ignoramus) and I must be attacked at every turn with lies and calumnies for doing so.

Hell, Dave even edited it to put my name in the title! See what I mean about folks who cannot let things go?

. . . Dave continues to add stuff from this thread in a desperate effort to try and goad responses from us and again courtesy of his selective prooftexting ala the way folks prooftext magisterial texts or even Scripture for their own ends. (Albeit nothing said on this thread here has that sort of status of course!)
But since he is seeing this thread, before you change the settings, I will address this to him personally and say nothing else on this thread in the foreseeable future. Here goes...

Hey Dave, the issue I had with Fr. Neuhaus (God rest his soul!) had NOTHING to do with you whatsoever. It was in the grand scheme of things a minor matter (as virtually all things which involve someone who passes on are) and I let it drop a long time ago -mentioning it only in an aside to Pete on this thread which now I wish I had not. But hey, if you had any sense of honour or decency, you would not kick dirt on the grave of a deceased for the sake of your ego.

That's the problem with someone like you who is not interested in the truth but instead just spinning anything they can into whatever revisionist light best suits their inflated ego. I am thinking of going back to where I reviewed one of his books on Amazon and deleting the review -the thought of saying anything nice about someone who acts this way is frankly something I am starting to regret.

. . . I am through on this thread feeding Dave's massive revisionist ego. I will pray for him that he seeks the help he so badly needs and accept this as a reminder of why Christian unity in general is such a seemingly insurmountable mountain and only by God's grace will it ever occur on this side of the eschaton.

[reply to someone who was mockingly saying they "disagreed" with me; as if no one can ever do so] So you were "Denying The Faith" then,. . .?

Flail away, y'all! God sees everything you are doing . . . .

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 14, 2013 10:19

Further Defense of My Use of the Term "Radtrad" / Ridiculous Controversy and Gossip Fest Over a Non-Incident

For preliminary background, see the first chapter in my recent book on radical "traditionalism." The following exchange occurred on a Facebook page of a friend. My opponent, Terrye Newkirk (words in blue throughout) did not agree to have her words transferred here, and it was not totally "public" because it was a Facebook thread for friends of the host only. I honored that by not citing Terrye's words (in my original posting of this article); that is, till now.

It's different now because Terrye has since gone on to absurd levels of further
distortions and caricatures of my views and what I supposedly stated about them; this time in a public Facebook thread on her own page. At first, she didn't name my name. But later in the thread she did, and this led to two old nemeses of mine showing up and joining in on the feeding frenzy. Therefore, since she is misrepresenting with ragged hearsay and revisionist accounts, what actually happened in the first discussion, I have every right to document it, in order to defend my name and reputation against all the besmirching now occurring.

I have reproduced the entire discussion chronologically, as best I can determine from what I have, and memory of just two nights ago. I had removed most of my comments from the thread and left a few off of this original post because it wasn't a dialogue at first. But the words you see are all the actual ones: cut-and-pasted (excepting bracketed interjections added later).
* * * * *
Initially, Terrye complained about the use of the term radtrad, which she considers sloppy, imprecise, improper, and uncharitable. Those comments are unable to be cited verbatim, because I didn't have them in my in-box, since I hadn't yet entered the discussion, and they were removed from the thread, either by her or the page's host.

All the traditionalist priests I have known have been FSSP or monks. Perhaps that explains my joy. I've run into the other sort of laymen, notably when I worked for Catholic Answers and was considered an Antichrist, and online, where I have been accused of modernism, right down to my surname ("new church"). I just avoid the wackos. Simple.

As the author of two books on "traditionalism" and a student of them for 15 years, I am very precise in my own terminology. I know there are many respectable "traditionalists." That is precisely why I use "radtrad" to distinguish them from the mainstream ones: of whom I have several friends. [I provided the link to the chapter in my book on "traditionalism" that deals with definitions]

Dave, I appreciate what you are TRYING to say, but I think you don't make clear enough distinctions at times. At least, some of your "followers" take your definitions to mean virtually all traditionalists. I had to leave one apologetics groups because one of them made erroneous statements and banned a bunch of EF fans because he misinterpreted what some of them said. Not your fault, I realize, but I dislike the term "radtrad" because it IS imprecise and easily misunderstood.

I would not use the term "radical" to describe anyone divorced from their roots. Radical, in the Leftist sense, has been co-opted; it's more properly a conservative term. But, pax, I have just seen ill effects. And Karl was writing about those flirting with schism in the traditionalist wing years before you OR Pat. Ask Gerry Matatics.

[I noted in a comment now lost, that I knew Karl had been doing that, and that I was talking about books, not all critiques of traditionalism. I have written two [one / two]; Pat Madrid another]

I disagree about [the definition of] "radical" and I know a little about use of terms for movements, too, having majored in sociology. The "radical traditionalist" is the one who goes too far: they want to "reform" the Church so much that it does become radical almost precisely in the original Luther sense (revolutionary / overturn / uproot / revolt). They are so opposed to liberalism that they go full circle and become one themselves by dissing popes. They start out opposing Protestantism and then adopt key aspects of same (again, dissing popes, dissing Church authority, councils, officially promulgated forms of the Mass, and the Catholic Mind).

Thus, "radical" used here: going to the roots, refers to going to the very roots of Catholic ecclesiology: the papacy, and digging it up. That's not a dis-use of "radical". It's exactly what it means. It can be used more than one way (like most words), but my use is not improper.

What you need to understand, too, is that my definition of "radtrad" is not simply the SSPX or sedevacantist. It encompasses the many who flirt around the edges without technically going over it: people who bitch about the Church constantly and seem to be able to do little else: trashing the OF Mass, Vatican II, and popes, while admitting (how gracious and nuanced) that they are "valid"!!! They want to have it both ways. I've written at great length about this characteristic. I used "quasi-schismatic" in the same sense back in 2002 at the time of my first book. Now I use "radtrad" that way.

[Note added later: "OF" = Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass, also known as the Novus Ordo or Pauline or "New" Mass. "EF" is the Extraordinary Form, or the Tridentine or "Old" Mass. This is the official way now to refer to both.]

"Radtrad" inherently trivializes. "Schismatics," "sedevacantists," etc., are more accurate. Earlier someone lumped Voris in with the SSPX. That is inaccurate and unfair.

Most of those that I call radtrads are not canonically schismatics. They are Catholics in the legal sense. It's also a far larger category (the ones I describe, bitching about and trashing everything in the Church) than sedevacantists or SSPX. Thus, you still have not given me an alternate term that encompasses my larger category. "Radtrad" is in my usage, to the left of SSPX. It doesn't go that far. If I'm talking about SSPX or sedevacantist (both true schismatics), I call them that. But radtrad is a far larger category.

[I asked Terrye if I could cite her words in a presentation of our -- up to then cordial and constructive -- dialogue, on my blog]

I'd prefer to keep my comments to Facebook for now, Dave, as they are very much on the fly and I haven't yet completed a thought. I'd have to take your points in the first chapter one by one, and it's too late at night to tackle that. For instance, I would never demean anyone by a term like "radtrad" who is obedient to the Magisterium, no matter HOW much they bitched about the atrocious OF Masses they've witnessed. You say it's not enough that they accept the Pauline Mass as valid. But it is, absolutely! Different Religious Orders complain about others and feel they're not quite as wonderful as their own...but we don't refuse to call them fully priests or nuns just because they prefer their own tradition.

Many (including most "traditionalists" and "radtrads" alike) approach these issues legally or canonically, whereas I approach it as a matter of the spirit of the thing: much like Jesus approached the Pharisees, and Sadducees, too, for that matter, and how Jesus and Paul both reinterpreted and reapplied the Law.

If it's not canonical, then it's just my opinion, right?

It goes beyond mere legality. It is a divisive, quasi-schismatic spirit. I'm trying to prevent folks from going out into wacko schismatic land.

Dave if you're going to start calling names, then every Catholic who is uncharitable, misinformed, or boneheaded will qualify.

Dave, are you aware that most of the PROTESTANT calumnies against the Jesuits originated from rival Orders?

[I said, yes, but that is wasn't particularly relevant]

But there's no real definition.

So that's even worse than someone disliking the OF Mass! [not sure what this was referring to]

Dave, I'm done. You have not really furthered your argument, just restated it and failed to answer any objections. So goodnight and pax.

[I replied in a conciliatory manner that my opinion of her contributions was not nearly as low as hers of mine]

That's not what I said, Dave. But if you encounter similar objections repeatedly from those whose contributions you value, perhaps you might consider that they have merit.

[Alan Sides, a friend of mine, appeared at this point]

Thanks for calling in Dave, Alan. Now I know that HE is confused. ;-)

[Later, Terrye made the following claim, which is absolutely untrue]:

Dave, next time, fight your own battles. Don't send shills in the middle of the night to badger folks into desperation.

Dave, you may accept all rites, just not all Catholics.

[I responded that I classify those whom I call radtrads as Catholics, so I accept their designation according to canon law.]

See Karl Keating's comment on the term. That is all.

[Karl doesn't like the term radtrad and said so on Terrye's page. I have communicated to him that I'd be more than happy to discuss terminology, privately or publicly, if he would like to do that]

[Terrye then got into a contentious discussion with Alan Sides. She has falsely accused him of calling her a radtrad, etc., too. In fact, he expressly denied this, twice]:

Are you sure you really didn't take the term rad trad a bit personally when it really had nothing to do with you?

Nor did I accuse you. I'm simply trying to make a point with some examples of where I think the term Rad Trad comes from.

She ended their "exchange" with "shut up" and "go away."

* * * * *
[The next day, Terrye put up her public Facebook thread on and started commenting even more acerbically. She started with this massively inaccurate blast (with my replies point-by-point)]:

I was thrilled with the election of our new Holy Father and enjoying the afterglow with Facebook friends last night. Sadly, it didn't last. I happen to prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, as is my right.

[which is perfectly fine. I am all for liturgical freedom]

Imagine how I felt being referred to as a "radtrad", lumped in with schismatics and sedevacantists by my fellow Catholics,

[I did no such thing, nor did Alan, and I can't find anyone else in the thread who did]

badgered into stupefaction by sophomoric arguments, and made a target of generalizations unworthy of anyone with minimal thinking skills.

[Right]

Had to block one pitbull and unfriend a couple of folks I have previously enjoyed debating.

[I was one of the ones unfriended. I enjoyed debating her, too, back in the days when she actually did it, and operated on a rational plane when debating]

It's not worth losing one's peace. Viva Francis! I hope Benedict is praying hard for us.

[no, it's not worth it. None of this had to happen.]

[Then, after I put up a response to some of it (a Facebook page that disappeared in a flash, because, apparently, Terrye complained to Facebook). Even then, I described her as "thoughtful and intelligent and spiritual." She wrote a few comments on my page, where she was allowed to speak freely]:

On the thread that Dave has hijacked here.

Suffice it to day that the conversation was not as it is portrayed here.

Dave, you do not accept ANY sort of criticism, so I see no point in further discussion. Others have blocked you for this reason; I will if necessary.

I don't consider "radtrad" civil at all, as I attempted to explain. Use the proper terms, as Karl suggests.

[All the following remarks were written on her thread]:

Karl, SOME traditionalists have behaved badly, as usual. But I can promise you that, if you expressed yourself an EF sort of Catholic, you'd hear PLENTY.

[never from me; not just for attending the EF; I have no problem with that whatever. Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nuthin' . . . ]

My objection was to the term "radtrad" to define anyone who even criticizes the OF

[not my definition at all. Here, let's quote my own words from my own book: words that were provided to Terrye (link to chapter 1), and she seems to have read them, but still doesn't get it]:

I don't have the slightest objection to anyone preferring to attend the Tridentine Mass. I was completely in favor of the 2007 decree from the Holy Father to make that Mass more widely available (that had been my own position since becoming a Catholic in 1990).
I've been attending the only parish in metro Detroit that offered it prior to that time, and have attended the very reverent, traditionally practiced Novus Ordo Latin Mass there since 1991 to the time of writing. This book will consider as “radtrads” those who insist on continually bashing the Pauline “New” Mass (whether they regard it as valid or not) as somehow less than fully Catholic, or doctrinally watered-down: along with insults towards those who prefer it, as second-class Catholics.

And again, later in the chapter:

Radtrads can’t stop bashing and trashing popes, Vatican II, the New Mass, and ecumenism: going as far as they can go without technically crossing over the canonical line if schism.

and, let's face it, before the new translation, there were legitimate questions, not about validity, but about translation.

[I'm all for having good translations. A non-issue for me, again . . . But folks are lumping me in with all this as if I think any differently . . . ]

I am sorry that even some folks at CA radio seem to use this unhelpful term.

[By Terrye's "reasoning," if someone on CA radio says "radtrad" she'll think that is proof positive it must have been said directly about her! Catholic apologist Mark Shea writes very perceptively about the terminology issue. For example:]

The basic difference between a so-called "neo-Catholic" and a self-described Traditionalist who labels others "neo-Catholic" is this: A "neo-Catholic" calls himself and the Traditionalist "Catholic" while the Traditionalist calls himself "Traditionalist" and his brother Catholic "Neo-Catholic". It's a term designed by factionalists to marginalize Catholics whose only crime is docility to the teaching of Holy Church. A Catholic will, if the Traditionalist insists, refer to the Traditionalist as a Traditionalist. But that, again, is only due to a) the Traditionalist's aggressive insistence on the factional label and b) the Catholic’s desire to be accommodating. In short, Catholics are disposed to welcome Traditionalists as brother Catholics in good standing with the Church, while the Traditionalist who insists on the label "neo-Catholic" does so in order to insinuate that brother Catholics docile to the post-conciliar Magisterium are not really up to snuff and, indeed, may well be enemies of the Faith. It is only when docile Catholics are on the receiving end of this aggressive contempt that we will sometimes use the term "Rad Trad" to describe the aggressor. But we do not mean that to refer to all self-described Traditionalists. We only mean it to refer to those Traditionalists who attempt to reduce the Faith to their hothouse subculture and to exclude those outside it from the dignity of being hailed as fellow Catholics in full obedience to Holy Church. We do not apply it to those who happen to have Traditionalist sensibilities, but who do not suggest, insinuate or say that Catholics docile to the Magisterium are second-class "neo-Catholics". We recognize that the Church is the home of many kinds of piety and many schools of opinion—Traditionalists among them. [my bolding]

You know, in some ways, radical traditionalism — as opposed to a legitimate Catholic traditionalism that merely prefers traditional expressions of the faith but does not reject Vatican II and the contemporary Church — annoys me more than progressivism. Perhaps it is because the progressivists are usually honest enough to admit that they wish to change the doctrines and disciplines of the Church. They are easier to deal with because their agenda is clear. Radical traditionalists, on the other hand, present their discontinuity with Church history and their rejection of the authority of the Church’s leaders as a supposedly Truly Catholic Response to concerns about the admitted difficulties in some human sectors of the modern Church. Anyone who rejects their understanding of the Church and its teachings is not as Catholic as they.

Jimmy Akin himself (a good friend of Terrye's, by her own report) authored a 2006 article on his site, called, "Overcoming RadTrad Temptations."

Prominent Catholic writer Daria Sockey wrote an article, "Rally, Rad-trad Protest, and a Knight," on the Catholic Exchange website on 25 March 2012, referring to our subject matter as "the extreme traditionalist" and "fringe societies" in the article. Terrye prefers "wacko." I don't see a Hades of a lot of difference . . .

I have NEVER been a Lefebvrist or even a sympathizer. I've always urged people NOT to go to the SSPX. Yet I got lumped in with them.

[Who did it??!! I did not; repeat did NOT ever classify her this way, and she can't prove it, so instead we have rumor-mongering, and flat-out gossip and calumny. She never documents it. It's classic propaganda: has no relation to the truth at all. Good reason for that: it never happened. Note that now she is not just saying someone called her a radtrad, but also connected with the schismatic SSPX. Fact has been thrown to the winds. It's amazing.]

I suppose the demonic is bound to be stirred up at a time like this . . .

[oh, I agree, since Jesus said that the devil is the father of lies.]

Lisa, I am also a convert. And I almost never unfriend folks, especially when I disagree with them! But I do feel strongly that ALL Catholics deserve respect and should not be trivialized by terms like "radtrad" or "Taliban Catholics."

Donna, I agree: All this is the work of the Adversary. Even MY part in the debate last night. I should have shaken off the dust and moved on.

[and have never tried to dig in and escalate this with her post on her page . . .It would have been long forgotten already, but for that . . .]

My initial question was, why not use the proper terms, such as schismatic, sedevacantist, etc. And why include loyal, obedient Catholics in the opprobrium?

[and I answered that in the initial exchange, as seen above. She blew it off. I carefully explained that it is because that's not what I mean by radtrads. I call those two categories by those names, but my use of "radtrad" is for folks to the left of them, not identical to, or to the right.]

I said I was confused and annoyed by the term "radtrad."

I feel better. Just reaching out to my sane and balanced friends, b!tching a little, and letting about 12 hours go by...all is good again. The problem with these wiles of the Devil is that the seem harmless in the beginning. Like the tarbaby, we're stuck before we realize it! Thank God, His mercy is never-ending, and a little quiet and prayer restores us.

Shawn McElhinney Were these persons regular joes or were they claiming more "advanced credentials", "Terrye?

Shawn, it was Dave Armstrong and his minion, Alan Sides. Dave just copied and pasted this post to advertise yet another of his books and continue his harassment of me. I forwarded it to Facebook and to Karl, and I hope it will vanish. . . .

[very interesting, isn't it? If I defend myself against lies it is merely to advertise "yet another" of my books, and the good ol' harassment thing comes out. Why are irrational, boorish tirades so utterly predictable? At least we should see some originality, if we must be faced with such tedium.]

Shawn McElhinney Terrye, to agitate and create controversy is one way that not a few of the apologetics mentality get attention for themselves and also are better prepared to hawk their wares -either in book sales, donations to their "apostolate", or whatever. There are also those who troll threads for material to gin up controversy for the purposes of attention and cash. A wrestling promoter named Eric Bischoff wrote a book years back called "Controversy Creates Cash" and he could have had the apologetics movement in mind every bit as much as he did professional wrestling with that title but that is neither here nor there.

[Shawn -- with whom I had been friends -- decided to savagely attack my person and motives in 2005 when we disagreed on the morality and justifiability of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked: he for, me against. Since that time, he wrote blistering and repeated attacks against my character on his website. I replied at length at the time to the numerous outrageous slanders, but on the urging of a mutual friend, unilaterally removed all my replies, while Shawn decided to keep all of his up. But I did later preserve just a few of the choicer tidbits from his bizarre attacks (see #1 in this "Top Ten" paper), and consider them the worst things ever said about me by anyone online, including the avalanche of insults from James White. He has also viciously attacked Karl Keating and other apologists. His garbage remains up to this day on his old site, Rerum Novarum . Just search for my name there and you'll find posts like, "On David Armstrong's Tragic Mental Meltdown": discussing my "pathetic delusions," etc. You get the idea. Here's my absolute favorite of his reams and reams of insults and lies at my expense (I am blessed with no end of belly-splitting laughter over this one, whenever I read it):

. . . your claim to want to dialogue was a sham exactly as I said it was. You should have had the decency to have admitted to it publicly rather than try to pretend that you wanted to dialogue. Furthermore, if you never intended to interact with my arguments, then you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for crying about how soundly I bitchslapped your crap down publicly . . .

Alas, I'm not the only apologist in Shawn's huge three-car garage doghouse. For example, here he is writing about me in his usual boorish and inane fashion, on 10 December 2006:

For one thing, he tries to bring into the picture Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Pat Madrid as if they are necessarily being viewed by me in the same light as I do Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and himself. Secondly, Dave obviously is interested in playing this up in his predictable Jerry Springeresque way . . . Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants . . .

All friends of mine: all men I greatly admire . . . but for some reason Keating, Akin, and Shea are in Shawn's doghouse with yours truly (honored to be in there with 'em!), while the other three manage to escape it. What's the huge difference? Well, none, really (all three of the "good guys" have given very glowing reviews of my work, by the way), except whether ol' Shawn grants them his Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval or not! As if anyone cares in the first place. . .! Not many cared at all about Shawn's endless, War and Peace pontifications, as he consistently used to get about ten readers per day, average, on his site. But no doubt he would say that this was because his sublime profundities were well beyond the grasp of the unwashed masses of ignorant peasantry. At least he had the eventual sense to shut the thing down. In past years (before all he could do was rant against me and other apologists), he actually did some valuable work, especially about radtrad errors: some of which I still cite, despite all]

I shouldn't have mentioned names, Shawn, and I shouldn't have fallen for the controversy. The copy of my post (together with a book ad) did disappear, and I'm happy to let the matter rest.

[then why not remove garbage such as this, above?]

Kevin M. Tierney It is good to see my "friend" living in Melvindale is still treating his brother Catholics who love the Latin Mass like they are the enemy. Sometimes you want a change, but the old hits are lovely.

[Kevin is another guy originally friendly, who turned on me quite dramatically in roughly the same period: 2005 or so. He wrote long, absurd posts about how I supposedly am what is called an "integrist" and that I think the pope is infallible in regard to the color of his socks, weather reports, and what side of the bed to get out of, and can never ever ever be criticized for even the teensiest weensiest thing!: none of which was ever remotely true at any time. I had long since had papers on my site explaining how there are times when popes were opposed, and should have been (such as by St. Catherine, St. Francis, and St. Dominic). I also differed with popes on the War in Iraq and (just a little) on the death penalty. All to no avail . . . I explained all this at length to Kevin, several times, and it was perfectly useless (ever have "dialogues" like that?). Now when he hears a lie about me, he immediately believes it and parrots it, without the slightest attempt to check out the facts for himself. This is the exact opposite of the truth. I have attended Latin Mass myself for 22 years, and have always advocated Catholics having freedom to attend the Pauline Latin Mass (my preference) and also the Tridentine Mass, that my own parish offers and that I have attended. In 2011 I replied to one of his many attacks on apologetics and apologists.]

Shawn McElhinney Well Kevin, in the words of those great western philosophers The Who: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

[and Shawn is the same old Shawn: acting as usual, like (well, you fill in the blanks) . . . ]

****
Dave, you left, and sent Alan to keep haranguing late into the night.

[I did no such thing, as I have already pointed out. It's a complete lie. She thinks I was plotting through the night how to torment her. In fact I was very tired and wanted to go to bed, after a harrowing day of my 11-year-old daughter's guinea pig about to die, and her very upset about it. It was dead the next day: yesterday morning. How pathetically ironic that at the very moment Terrye was convinced that I was plotting in a sinister way how to make her miserable, through my supposed "shill", I was in actuality worried -- like any good dad would be -- about my crying, distraught daughter, whom I adore. She was asleep by then, but the last thing on my mind, believe me, was Terrye's nonsense, after I left the thread]

Your DEFINITION of radtrad condemns many magisterial, loyal Catholics, because you do not recognize the CHURCH'S definition of Catholic.

[nonsense. Because I do, I classify them as Catholics: just ones who don't think with the Mind of the Church]

You posted that definition. I have objected to the term since I first saw you use it, as you know--as have others. I would think, as I said, that perhaps you might think the objections have merit, since good Catholics find the term offensive.

[if I am given a compelling reason, I'll certainly reconsider. I'm happy to talk to anyone about it who is capable of rational, civil discussion when they disagree with someone: unlike Terrye]

I no longer have access to the thread. If I did, I would remove some of my later posts, when the very creepy and belligerent Mr. Sides would NOT let the subject drop. He was insulting. He was not asking questions to elicit answers, but merely as a platform to post more diatribe. You say he's your friend. Perhaps you can advise him to be less aggressive.

[paranoia and nonsense. Alan dared to disagree, just as I did, and that's all this is about. I didn't see him do anything improper. But I saw Terrye exhibit foolish pride, by noting that she used to work at Catholic Answers, so how dare Alan lecture her (i.e., words to that effect). Whoop-de-doo! I have credentials, too. That's neither here nor there, as to the discussion at hand]

And Pete [Vere] has given HIS definition. Why not use the full term and definition?

Pete, I don't use NO [Novus Ordo] because so many use it pejoratively. I do use TLM at times.

I removed Dave's comments and my responses, because I think it's best if I stick to my resolve to DROP the discussion. I've messaged him to that effect. Feel free to discuss me with him elsewhere.

Yet the thread with several falsehoods about me remains up as of writing, after several attempts through a mediator to have her remove it, so that I wouldn't have to post this.

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 14, 2013 10:19

Further Defense of My Use of the Term "Radtrad"

For preliminary background, see the first chapter in my recent book on radical "traditionalism." The following exchange occurred on a Facebook page of a friend. My opponent did not agree to have her words transferred here, so the following may appear "choppy" because I was responding to her in numerous back-and-forth exchanges. It was not totally "public" anyway (like my own Facebook page is), so I can only cite my own words, without express permission.

It's probably for the better. The initially promising discussion soon broke down (what else is new on the Internet?) into foolishness and non-interaction. I am sick to death of ridiculous, worthless discussions online. But I think I made some relevant points, and so have preserved them below. My opponent could have been heard here, too, if her reasoning was so compelling and inherently superior to mine, as she made out, but she refused. No skin off of my back . . .

To see what this person (publicly) wrote about our exchange afterwards, on her page, and her wholesale distortion of what I wrote and argued, see my Facebook post and discussion thread about it]
* * * * *
As the author of two books on "traditionalism" and a student of them for 15 years, I am very precise in my own terminology. I know there are many respectable "traditionalists." That is precisely why I use "radtrad" to distinguish them from the mainstream ones: of whom I have several friends.

I disagree about [the definition of] "radical" and I know a little about use of terms for movements, too, having majored in sociology. The "radical traditionalist" is the one who goes too far: they want to "reform" the Church so much that it does become radical almost precisely in the original Luther sense (revolutionary / overturn / uproot / revolt). They are so opposed to liberalism that they go full circle and become one themselves by dissing popes. They start out opposing Protestantism and then adopt key aspects of same (again, dissing popes, dissing Church authority, councils, officially promulgated forms of the Mass, and the Catholic Mind).

Thus, "radical" used here: going to the roots, refers to going to the very roots of Catholic ecclesiology: the papacy, and digging it up. That's not a dis-use of "radical". It's exactly what it means. It can be used more than one way (like most words), but my use is not improper.

What you need to understand, too, is that my definition of "radtrad" is not simply the SSPX or sedevacantist. It encompasses the many who flirt around the edges without technically going over it: people who bitch about the Church constantly and seem to be able to do little else: trashing the OF Mass, Vatican II, and popes, while admitting (how gracious and nuanced) that they are "valid"!!! They want to have it both ways. I've written at great length about this characteristic. I used "quasi-schismatic" in the same sense back in 2002 at the time of my first book. Now I use "radtrad" that way.

[Note: "OF" = Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass, also known as the Novus Ordo or Pauline or "New" Mass. "EF" is the Extraordinary Form, or the Tridentine or "Old" Mass. This is the official way now to refer to both.]

Many (including most "traditionalists" and "radtrads" alike) approach these issues legally or canonically, whereas I approach it as a matter of the spirit of the thing: much like Jesus approached the Pharisees, and Sadducees, too, for that matter, and how Jesus and Paul both reinterpreted and reapplied the Law. It goes beyond mere legality. It is a divisive, quasi-schismatic spirit. I'm trying to prevent folks from going out into wacko schismatic land.

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 14, 2013 10:19

March 11, 2013

"Dialogue" on Obamanomics (vs. Bruce Townley)

This occurred in a public Facebook thread on my page. I've edited it for more compact presentation. Bruce Townley is an atheist and former Christian (though those things don't have any direct relation to the present discussion) , with whom I've had many (attempted) debates on theological topics, going back several years (he used a pseudonym in those). Unfortunately, the exchanges were always of the unsavory character that we again observe in this instance (hence my use of quotation marks around "Dialogue" in the title). His words will be in blue. I started out citing an article that stated that 296,000 fewer Americans were employed since January.
* * * * *
Bravo, Obama voters: your guy's doing great for his lobbyists, green companies, and the fatcats on Wall Street, with almost record-high stock prices (for now). For the little guy, not quite so wonderful. I'm barely surviving as a full-time apologist, directly due to his idiotic policies, that have caused reduced sales across the board, for all kinds of products. But at least I still have a job. Pray for those who don't, and for folks to vote Republican in 2014, lest nothing will be done at all for the economy until 2016.

White unemployment is 6.8%.
Teenagers (25.1 percent),
blacks (13.8 percent),
Hispanics (9.6 percent)

[additional source]

Again, this is the ironic folly of groups voting disproportionately for the candidate who is hurting them the most. They see no relation between his policies and unemployment. The GOP task will be to convince these groups that there IS a direct relation, and that there are alternative policies to this ongoing madness.

This sort of "causal blindness" is extraordinary and almost unprecedented. The only precursor I know of is FDR during the Great Depression: where his policies never ended the thing (only WW II did); yet everyone thought he was wonderful, and so kept blindly voting for him.

The government stops counting certain unemployed after a while: the ones who have given up altogether. So that puts up the appearance of reduction. I think the actual rate would be 12-13%. The real numbers are above: 296,000 no longer employed. That's a lot of folks and a whole lot of suffering.

This nonsense should have started to recover by 2011 at the latest. But because Obama is a socialist it just goes on and on. I still believe that the Dems are gonna pay a huge price in the long run for this economic lunacy. They may hoodwink and fool people for a season, but they'll get their come-uppance once further disasters start happening.

My only raises are new book contracts. I achieved four of those in the last year-and-a-half, yet my income went down 10% last year; it's so bad. My royalties had already been decimated compared to five years ago. Thus I keep knocking myself out, working harder and harder, in order to have less income than I used to.

If the economy were normal I think I'd probably be doing better than ever. If only . . . there has never been an election where the result had such a direct negative effect on my income. Carter would have done the same, but I was in college then and not supporting myself yet.

Dave Armstrong, what Obama policy (idiotic or otherwise) do you attribute to directly reducing your sales?

Higher taxes, more regulations, the various stimulii, health care (that continues to raise health care costs), making the business climate lousy, leading to layoffs and unemployment and reluctance to invest. This affects everyone, so that we have less spending cash, and less disposable income, which in turn lowers sales. Since my income is entirely sales (book royalties) and (to a far lesser extent), donations-based, I have to suffer disproportionately, because folks buy less books and make less donations in a bad economy, when they can barely pay their bills.

Excepting the Great Depression, the average length of a recession or depressed economy is about two years. It is directly due to Obama doing nothing or exactly the wrong thing, that the current mess is now over four years, with no end in sight.

I've observed this in my own life on at least three occasions: the early 70s; Carter and the early 80s (when I was trying to get my first major job and was unemployed two years). Reagan got the economy going again by lowering taxes.

Again, a minor recession occurred at the end of Bush I's tenure in 1992 (thus we see the cyclical nature of it: about every ten years). Bill Clinton knew how to get out of that because he's an economic centrist; even tilting a little to the right. But not Big O: he's gonna do the economically stupid thing come hell or high water: no matter how many people he harms in the process.

Thus this madness looks like it'll continue indefinitely until we see a complete collapse of the stock market, with all the dire consequences of that.

Ah. Ok. I was looking for more than partisan punditry points. Like the actual policy and analysis why an alternative policy would have increased your sales, etc. Some of these points are...nebulous...at best. Others seem even contradictory to your position.

Ah. Ok. It was straight economic analysis (obviously from my conservative outlook). You asked a question; I answered honestly, and you come back with mere generalized disagreement, minus any substance. This is your pattern. It gets quite wearisome.

If you want real discussion, then engage in it. You're quite capable of that, for sure (apart from your positions), if you put your mind to it. Otherwise I'll simply ignore you henceforth, if you're merely looking for "gotcha" moments and chances to lob insults. But others are reading this, too, so my efforts here aren't a total waste of time.

I don't have time ((let alone desire) for an extensive treatment of basic economics. That is your burden, not mine, if you lack understanding of it. We know from past experience that certain policies stimulate business and the economy and others do not. We can actually learn from history (a novel concept!).

Reagan and Clinton and Kennedy all successfully did that, with regard to stimulating economies, so it's not merely a "partisan" thing. There used to be widespread agreement on what works and what doesn't. The present policies obviously do not work, or else we would have had an upturn long before now.

You voted for Obama (apparently, twice). If you think he is so wonderful and good for the country (for reasons beyond same-sex "marriage": that we know you are fired up about), by all means tell us why. Make your case, if you think mine is so insubstantial. Don't just say in your usual manner that mine stinks. You say you are a "disappointed" voter. Fine: how come?

Like I've said, I have to live with the consequences of Obama's and the do-nothing Democrats' policies (their doing nothing about very important matters, like job creation and the immense debt) every day. You're doing fine in your well-paying occupation. Obama's policies don't harm nearly as much those in the upper middle class and upper class: the 10%; the 1% . . .

Wall Street is doing fine. Hollywood and music stars are doing great. Those with lots of money to invest continue to do so. It's those of us who are struggling every month to simply meet our family budgets who are suffering, while Obama plays golf and hobnobs with Beyonce, etc., and utterly refuses to work together with Republicans to accomplish anything.

My only investment is my own books. My house certainly isn't an investment anymore. It's losing value every month and I am paying over twice what its market value now is. All I have is my books, which are my life's work. Thus, an economy that has very low sales does immense harm to me, and I'm not getting any younger (55 in July). And it is the same with many businesses: especially the small ones, and the sole proprietorships.

The medical profession is also suffering because of the craziness of Obamacare. We have had a wonderful family doctor for 22 years, since my first son was born. He has practically been run out of his profession. He's not a conservative; he's a Jewish liberal. But he knows why he is struggling.Alas, Bruce and I have a little history. I have refuted his atheist anti-biblical arguments so many times, he's not inclined to listen to what I have to say about anything. :-) That's why we talk past each other and never rise to actual dialogue.

A quick note before I am off to work today. I attempt to obtain information from various perspectives from theist to non-theist, liberal to conservative to libertarian, American to Asian, etc. It is just your misfortune to be one of conservative sources where I occasionally question.:-)

Good for you. You question me, then when I give a detailed, sincere reply you simply mock and sneer and don't engage in conversation. You don't like what I say. I don't like how you refuse to engage in normal conversations (at least with me). So we're at cross-purposes. Like you, I attempt to converse with all sorts of people. Unlike you (again, at least with me), I actually engage them, rather than childishly pursuing "gotcha" moments and rapidly descending into condescending sneering and disdain, as you habitually do with me.

My pattern and practice is easily seen—first I get clarification, then I probe a bit to see how consistent the claim is. Alas, in the past I have interacted with you on your Facebook page in this manner, and the post disappeared. I no longer spend the time doing more thorough analysis, as it seems to be quite a bit of work just to have it disappear.

If I feel that a thread is worthless and unedifying or uneducational to my readers, I get rid of it. Call it quality control. It just so happens that one or two of the threads you were in, were of this nature. If you improve your level of communication (in semi-street language, stop acting like a pompous ass), then it will stay up! Your choice. In any event, my patience with you is running pretty thin.

It's not just with you that I do this, on occasion. I remove political threads quite often, because they aren't my main purpose here. Most of the threads I remove (lately) are dominated by "traditionalist" Catholics. In that case, I am objecting to the manner and lack of argumentative acumen (or charity) of a portion of my own group.

You talk about effort?! I put all kinds of effort into answering you this time, only to get back your usual acerbic, short, disdainful potshot. Sorry, that ain't conversation. You can do far better than that.

You don't need to act like an ass with me. I'm well familiar with atheist modes of argumentation. I treat atheists with charity, as I do any other group with which I disagree. I've visited your group in-person (for the knowledge of other readers): once with sixteen atheists and agnostics and myself as the only theist / Christian in the room: spontaneously answering scores of questions.

Now I ask questions, and if your response does not provide any illumination, I indicate I have read it, and will be moving on. Sure, I do it with a bite—this is my nature.

Here you indicated there were certain Obama policies directly influencing your income. While I suspected this could be difficult to substantiate, I asked first in case I missed something. Perhaps there was some policy or implementation that did impinge your income, and I would agree with you. As I have said before, there are some things I agree with you on Obama, some I disagree, and some (same sex marriage) there is no reason to even comment as we both know each other’s position and disagreement.

Just to show how I would normally respond, let’s take just one of your indicated policies—“higher taxes.” Presumably, because your income is from people spending discretionary sums, you are indicating higher taxes means less income and therefore less buying your books. It would seem the very basic analysis would start with reviewing:

A. When did Obama increase taxes; and
B. Your income level at or near this period of time.

While we may have a “correlation vs. causation” issue, it would seem to me this would be at least the jumping off point. Yet in looking back at the last four years, Obama did not increase taxes! (Until 2013) Indeed, during some of the period, taxes were actually decreased by a reduction in individual social security contribution.

If individual taxes are directly related to your income, then during the period the taxes were decreased one would think your income must be increased.

I could have pointed this out. I equally could point out concerns about the other general categories you indicated. But why bother if this post will simply disappear?

No more for now, I really must get to work.

I gave the general answers that (fiscal) conservatives usually give. You didn't like the answers; you wanted them to be more specific. I don't think they need to necessarily be with regard to these issues under discussion. My reply was about describing how Presidents (and parties in control of Congress) directly affect the economy. What they do (or don't do) has an impact.

This economy has been in the toilet for over four years now. You can try to blame Republicans for that if you wish. Normally, the party in control gets the blame. Bush sure as hell caught all kinds of blame when he was in there. Yet Obama doesn't seem to be subject to the same criticism or oversight.

He claimed that his stimulus would bring unemployment below 5%. It didn't. He claimed things would be much better by now. They aren't. He had both houses under Dem control for two years. He claimed that Obamacare would reduce health costs. It didn't; they're going up. He claimed that Bush was "unpatriotic" for bringing about a debt far less than his own. He claimed that he would cut that debt by half. He didn't. Instead, he exponentially raised it.

All of this brings down the economy and keeps it down. There is cause and correlation here. Whether it is Obama or not, my income overall has decreased (literally 10% in 2012). My book royalties are drastically decreased from five years ago. Something has caused that. If it's not Obama and the Dems' policies, you tell me what it is. You can't argue that it's decreasing quality in my books (trying to blame me somehow), because I continue to have bestsellers in my field (my current Quotable Newman is doing very well). I managed to obtain four new book contracts in the last two years. An author (in any field) can scarcely do better than that. That's the bread and butter of an author. I even got one with a major Protestant publisher (for my Quotable Wesley), which is a huge breakthrough into new markets.

So it ain't me. It is less disposable income generally. Obama doesn't know how to stimulate an economy. It doesn't have to be the way it is.

When I was referring to "higher taxes," in context it had to do much more with corporations: on that macro-level: not as much individual taxes and micro-level stuff. Thus, much of your present (rare attempt at) counter-reply about taxes was irrelevant from the get-go, since that wasn't what I meant. You took my comment out of context, and ran with it, warring against a straw man. It may look good to the observer, but now that I have noted that it was a non sequitur, it's not nearly as impressive. The argument is that higher taxes and regulations on corporations and small businesses stifles economic growth.

Thus, when both Kennedy and Reagan decreased taxes, including (for Reagan) vastly lower corporate tax rates, the economy exploded with prosperity. That helps everyone: a rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

I give you my word that I won't delete any thread where you are active. Perhaps then you will engage in actual point / counter-point discussions: after I have taken away your great fear of your laborious wisdom being consigned to Internet oblivion.

You want concrete examples of my decrease in income, and arguments indicating direct causation. Well, the most obvious one is the loss of a part-time job in Dec. 2010. That came about as a result of the non-profit organization that I worked for, experiencing a massive decrease in donations (it is an outreach that specializes in Catholics who are joining or returning to the Catholic faith).

Now, clearly the bad economy caused that scenario to come about (that much seems unarguable from any perspective). The question then becomes: whose fault was that? I have argued in the past, and provided documentation that Bush and the Republicans were opposed to the practices of the government-related housing / mortgage / real estate businesses (promoted by the likes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd). They were warning that a crash was gonna come soon.

Sure enough it did, and of course they were blamed for it, as always (while Dems and Frank and Dodd got a pass). Bush did spend too much and got excessive. Most conservatives agree with that. I say it was primarily the Dems' fault. And now it is almost solely their fault that things continue to be in the tank, since he's been in there four years, and the Republicans have virtually no power. Everything the House does to try to make a change is DOA on Sen. Reid's desk. Thus, how can they be blamed?

This is why I blame Obama directly for much of my own woes and decreases of income. I mentioned earlier that, historically, excepting the Great Depression, economic downturns rarely lasted more than two years. This continues on, 4 1/2 years and running, with no end in sight, because Obama has no clue what he is doing. He does idiotic things, like not okaying drilling, and the famous pipeline, that would create many thousands of jobs and prosperity. We could easily become energy independent, with all that is happening in North Dakota and elsewhere, with huge reserves being discovered: but not with HIS brain-dead energy policies.

This is some of the reasoning I bring to bear in analyzing why things are the way they are. I'm the one suffering (with many millions of others). You're doing fine, as far as I know. It's easy to "armchair quarterback" on the economy when you're doing great. Those of us who have been harmed by the economic lunacy have a very different perspective. I'm trying to support four kids and pay a mortgage. Teaching and being an author never were very lucrative professions. I didn't choose this profession for big money in the first place. I just wanna pay my bills. I need all the help I can get, but Obama literally harms me and makes it far tougher to survive as a full-time author and Christian worker: precisely because bad economies greatly lower contributions to religious workers and book sales alike.

This will be my last comment (I apologize for the delay; busy weekend.)

It is no surprise you (and those sharing your beliefs) consider my positions refuted, or that I am a pompous ass, or grant no charity. Equally unsurprising, those sharing my beliefs consider the same about you. [shrug] It is human nature in these types of discussions. I am resigned to it, and muddle on.

I also understand you don’t like my style. I use different means depending on medium--as Facebook is a more shortened form, I figure a few sentences or significant question demonstrating a difficulty is sufficient. (And as previously pointed out, even that much effort can disappear—why exert even more?) As all my presentation forms upset you, I will refrain entirely.

And to finish this discussion, if by “Higher taxes” you were referring to corporate tax; again I would note corporate taxes did not increase during Obama’s first term. [Although one could point out increased corporate contribution to Social Security, this did not occur until 2011, after your indicated loss of income.] Again, the analysis fails to conform to the claim. I would also note Reagan increased corporate tax, so I am unclear as to your claim regarding Reagan “vastly lower corporate tax.” [Indeed the very reason Reagan could lower individual income tax was by offsetting it with increased corporate tax.]

[I did make an error here. I confused the corporate and individual tax rates. Reagan lowered the highest individual income tax rate from 70 to 28% (that's what I was referring to). See an article about it. According to another article, here are the results of Reagan's policies:

1. 20 million new jobs.
2. Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988.
3. Unemployment fell from 7.5% to 5.5%
4. Net worth of families making between $20,000 and $50,000 grew 27%.
5. Real gross national product rose 26%.
6. The prime interest rate went from 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988.
7. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988.
8. More than half of the new jobs created went to women.
9. Federal spending actually went down in 1987.
10. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The Gipper wisecracked, with a wry smile: "I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics." Elder George Bush famously had called his policies "voodoo economics" during the 1980 primaries. Would that we had much more of this "voodoo" and would bring it back today!]

You did ask a pertinent question with, “Something has caused this. If it’s not Obama and Dem’s policies, you tell me what it is.” A quick perusal of Google will demonstrate varied and conflicted reasoning regarding the 2007-2008 recession. However, for whatever reason, we all see it did occur. This Facebook status indicated (for whatever reasons it originally occurred) Obama’s policies either continued the problem or worsened it. I was curious as to what particular policy. One mentioned was “higher taxes.” My study on tax rates in the past decade made me question how this policy was even in force, let alone contributed to the recession. I have my answer as to your position.

Thanks.

Be well. Again, it is evident that there is no dialogue here. I tried.

You've insulted me a number of times, in many ways (not just in this exchange, but in many of ours), yet you can't handle one "pompous ass" and now take the cowardly route of appealing to others of your fiends who feel the same about me (ad populum fallacy). Your choice. I was actually trying to have a conversation, as clearly seen by my lengthy replies and the time put into them. Unfortuinately, this was certainly not a real, constructive dialogue, in the classical, constructive sense. It's "mutual monologue."

The entire exchange will be posted on my blog. Feel free to post it on yours, too, if you're convinced that you did so well and that I manifestly stand refuted.

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 11, 2013 11:43

March 9, 2013

Thoughts on the Death of a Dictator (Hugo Chavez) and How Catholics Ought and Ought Not to React (with Patti Sheffield)

Chavez (right) with his good buddy, madman Iranian leader Ahmadinejad.

This occurred on a Facebook thread, where I announced the death of Venezuelan despot, Hugo Chavez. I entitled it, "Dems praise the dead despot (What else is new? Look how they've adored Castro for 50 years, and later, [Daniel] Ortega)". My friend Patti Sheffield made some excellent corroborating statements. Her words will be in blue.
* * * * *
In the 30s, liberals adored and fawned over Uncle Joe Stalin, as Malcolm Muggeridge has witheringly noted on many occasions. The more things stay the same, the more they never change.

I pray that Chavez be shown mercy, and I also pray for his victims. There were many who died under his regime and he will have to answer for their lost lives. May Christ grant him final repentance and may he rest in peace. That said, his policies were despicable and cost many innocent people their lives. Caracas was the modern version of the killing fields of Cambodia. How anyone can praise his government is mind-boggling.

[responding to a critic in the thread, that Patti was also replying to] I haven't said anything about his soul: only that he was a despot, because it's already being spun that he wasn't. I wasn't talking about his death, but his life. May the Lord have mercy on his soul: of course.

Therefore, no one could conclude that I don't care about the man's soul at all, simply because I made a political observation: saying one word about the man: that he was a despot.

I'm a conservative, yes (with important explanatory qualifiers that I talk about in my Facebook profile). But it's neither right nor left to simply observe that a man is a dictator.

No one should be quick to condemn the "conservative" reaction to the death of a dictator. Our Lord Jesus called Herod a "fox" and didn't say everyone should pray for him (and He wasn't guilty of pride and a lack of love):

Luke 13:31-32 (RSV) [31] At that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you." [32] And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, `Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.

Here's how the Bible matter-of-factly reports Herod's death:

Acts 12:21-23 On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and made an oration to them. [22] And the people shouted, "The voice of a god, and not of man!" [23] Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died.

It's not saying we should not pray for him, but it is also matter-of-fact about an evil man's death. The Bible treats Judas' death similarly. So we mustn't judge reactions. People are happy that a dictator is out of office; therefore those who suffered under him may get some relief. That is what it means (even if some expression is excessive): not that Catholic "right-wingers" are wicked people who don't care about souls. There is also a legitimate longing for justice.

We're saying "pray, but also don't pretend he was something he was not." We all need to do both. Patti hit exactly the right balance in her comments. But not everyone necessarily needs to do both in public. No one can assume that if we don't say we're praying for a dead person, that we aren't doing so, or think that no one should.

I would also note the distinction between private and public expression. My point was to note the willingness of some folks to praise a person who was demonstrably evil. That seems to put spin and politics above factuality.

That was my point, which is why I went right to it. It's a legitimate public, social point. But just because I didn't mention prayer, proves nothing (just as no mention in the Bible of praying for the dead Judas or dead Herod proves nothing in this regard). I said hardly anything at all. It was a "minimalist" post.

I agree that people, especially Catholics, should be kind in their comments about a dead man. In general, it's a good thing to ask Christ to show him the mercy we ourselves hope to receive.

However, Dave was posting something about the equally appalling praises being heaped on the head of a murderous dictator by people in public life here in the US. Neither the lack of charity nor the lack of truth from [leftists] is right to do. Truth severed from charity is hard and at times very cruel; charity severed from truth fails to be real charity, and instead becomes squishy feel-goodisms that distort truth and confuse people. It is the Church that strikes the real balance here in insisting that the two remain united, as it did so clearly in the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

What the world needs is government and statesmanship informed by Jesus and the Christian worldview, as opposed to secular, despotic Marxism.

Here's more of the liberal hypocrisy that I was addressing. And yet m ore leftist idiocy . . . See also the article, "The Killing Fields of Caracas."

Most people have no idea about Caracas because the mainstream media doesn't report on things that don't jibe with their worldview that people like Chavez are really good guys at heart. That article ["Killing Fields"] set out why he wasn't. A man who can protect unborn children yet allow murder and intimidation of his own citizens isn't a paragon of pro-life virtue, sad to say.

Maybe Chavez didn't advocate partial-birth infanticide, as Obama does: sticking scissors in a baby's neck as soon as it enters the world and attempts to draw a breath, and sucking his or her brains out and crushing his or her skull. Maybe he wasn't that evil. Let's hope.

Being pro-life (if he truly was) regarding babies doesn't make him a perfect saint. It makes him a normal human being (in this respect), who ought to oppose the dismemberment and slaughter of a baby. Hitler was pro-life as well: for non-Jewish German babies, of course . . .

I've always been scathing, also, in condemning how African-Americans and Native Americans have been treated, and am long on record saying that America is the wickedest nation ever. Just said it a day or two ago, again, saying that the Nazis were about a third as wicked as us, because they killed 20 million, whereas we are up to 55 million and counting.

Here's a recent article on Chavez's role and how he will not be missed by those he terrorized. Note the section that outlines what he did to try to suppress religious freedom by passing laws that targeted the Church. He did a great deal of harm that most people know nothing about because our liberal press won't cover it.

We thought Obama messianism was bad! Here is how Ahmadinejad eulogized Chavez:

Chávez is alive, as long as justice, love and freedom are living. He is alive, as long as piety, brightness, and humanity are living. He is alive, as long as nations are alive and struggle for consolidating independence, justice and kindness. I have no doubt that he will come back, and along with Christ the Saviour, the heir to all saintly and perfect men, and will bring peace, justice and perfection for all. . . . Hugo Chávez was a name known to all nations. His name is reminiscent of pure innocence, kindness, fortitude and love for the people, to serve the people, especially the poor and the victims of colonialism and imperialism by arrogant powers. He is indeed a martyr of the road to service to Venezuelan people, and preserving human and revolutionary values.

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 09, 2013 13:12

PayPal Donations to My Apostolate

Click on the button / widget above and it takes you right to my PayPal account, if you want to send a contribution to my apostolate. Thank you!
Note: my account at PayPal is called "Catholic Used Book Service" due to my business ten years ago.

See more information on donations to my apologetics and evangelism apostolate.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 9 March 2013.

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 09, 2013 10:32

Chesterton Photograph Page #2 (47 "New" Shots)

See my first Chesterton Photograph and Portrait Page, too.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 9 March 2013.

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 09, 2013 01:15

March 8, 2013

Free Mobile App for Conclave News

From Verbum / Logos Bible Software. Pretty cool! Get it today!

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 08, 2013 09:21

March 4, 2013

Thoughts and Discussion on Informal "Jesus People" Worship (My Old Practice in the 80s) in Contrast to Formal Catholic Liturgy

The following are remarks come from a Facebook thread about the above meme. Others' words (all Catholics) will be in different colors. All of my Facebook posts are public, so there is no violation of confidence or privacy.

* * * * *

In my non-denom, "Jesus people" / "Jesus movement" days, that's exactly what we did: rock music and sermons; no liturgy at all . . . It's not all bad, because worship comes from the heart (and we did so back then), but it's not the biblical model of worship, either.

hmm...worship comes from the heart, but not biblical...

What do you mean? I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote. I was saying that I was worshiping from my heart in this fashion as a Protestant (which is good and not a bad thing), but that the "model" or structure of that sort of service is not biblical, because biblical worship is not sermon-centered, it's sacrifice [OT] / [NT] eucharistically-centered.

I know you are saying this type of worship is not all bad...but if it comes from the heart...how is that not biblical..I am older, a revert, found Jesus in many types of worships...if your heart is there, you will find Him and he will know it...just seems the smaller we make the box, the harder it is to fit in it...

I didn't say the "from the heart" aspect was not biblical. It's the distinction between spirit and form. The form of rock music + sermon (minus liturgy) is not the biblical norm. Worshiping from the heart is very much the biblical injunction. So one part is right and the other is not what we normally see in Scripture.

We can differentiate between good and bad things in one act. It's not completely black and white. God honored our worship as non-denom Protestants insofar as our hearts were right with Him and our worship truly directed towards Him (and I know that mine was, and my wife's was: for the most part). But it wasn't the Mass. So it's a mixed bag.

I was trying to avoid the judgmental legalism of saying that those types of worship are utterly bad, while agreeing with the sentiment of the photo.

I've also had very wonderful and spiritual worship experiences at charismatic Catholic Masses (and defend that movement in several papers of mine). But they are Masses, which is the point . . .

The deepest emotion I have felt has been at reverent, calm celebrations of the Mass--as Nessa says, preferably Latin.They concentrate the mind and heart wonderfully so that it's possible to pray the Liturgy. That often brings me to tears, when I realize what is happening before me.

For a lot of people, this pic's message is like slapping their momma ... Disagree as I do with rock n' roll (or even Catholic folk rock) services, people take their own brand of worship so personally that it's difficult to ask them to think about it or question it ...

Indeed; yet it is a valid point, and if one claims to be so in-tune with what is "biblical" (and most Protestants -- like myself, very much so, in those days -- assume that they "own" the Bible, over against Catholicism), then they ought to apply biblical models of worship as well. This is only holding them to their own ostensible standard (sola Scriptura).

It's not so much what they do as what they omit and look down on. Many Protestants assume (again, I was one) that formal worship is inherently impious and inferior. This is utterly unbiblical.

It's true that one can be formal without the heart, just as they can worship from the heart minus liturgy. People fall short in all sorts of ways. The key is to get the heart right towards God, and worship according to the liturgy as it has been passed down through the centuries. Both/and . . .

No one was less "liturgical" than I used to be. When I was going to a Lutheran church (1977-1980), I only went to the Bible studies: didn't even go on Sundays (amazing, as I think back on that). I've come full circle on this issue.

Dave, here's an observation. As an evangelical, all I saw in the book of Acts were sermons and miracles. The letters we have from St. Paul and the others are sermons or instructional. Outside of the Last Supper and St. Paul's mention of it in ! Corinthians, we didn't see much stress in the NT on the Eucharist at all. There wasn't a set liturgy in the NT, or something explicit about worship styles - just a lot of preaching. We saw it as a kind of free for all, and would have considered a liturgy centered around the Eucharist as even stranger than the church down the street that didn't allow music because it's not in the NT. I see all of that now, but I can understand why it would be a hard sell for some people.

I think that what finally woke me up was the day I visited a Dayton-area "mega church," and they were having the Lord's Supper with lunch trays and juice boxes. That stunned me in a way that I didn't completely understand, and it made me rethink the kind of well intentioned foolishness that I had been participating in. Thank God for His Church.

This is a great discussion. Agree not completely black and white . . . we were the only Catholic family there [at a non-denom school] ..we had the best of both worlds...we learned alot from others traditions, as they did about Catholicism...made us better Catholics..so I have a great respect for worship in all forms ...don't feel like we can truly know the best and most perfect way to worship Our Lord...just have to trust in the Lord and be careful about respecting other forms of Christian worship.

I agree that you have to dig deeper into Scripture to see liturgy. I certainly did, myself. But we see plenty of it in Revelation, in Hebrews (with the theme of Jesus as high priest), in Paul's use of sacerdotal language and references to "altars" and explicit real presence language, in the Last Supper, and John 6 (where sermonizing and the Eucharist are strikingly combined), in the post-Resurrection appearance to the disciples on the way to Emmaus, where Jesus disappears after they break bread; in the motif of Jesus as Lamb, and as our sacrifice . . . Also, after the apostles preached, they often baptized as well (e.g., notably, Acts 2), which combined the sacramental and supernatural transformation with the preaching.

I would say about sermons, that they are great (I wish homilies were far better in the Catholic Church: that every priest could preach like Cardinal Newman). I have nothing against them per se: only with placing them at the center or apex of a worship service. I've loved good sermons both as a Protestant and as a catholic, because I'm a big "ideas" and intellectually-oriented guy. It's the sermon emphasis to the complete exclusion (oftentimes) of the Eucharist (or even any liturgy at all) which is objectionable.

Obviously, Protestants differ in this respect, and there are degrees. The point of the meme was to critique the "low church" form of worship, that I happened to practice myself for 13 years.

Oh, I fully agree, Dave. I think it could be said with some fairness that I knew what the Bible said back then, but in spite of the intensive amount of theology, history and word study that I did, it all lacked the framework that the Church provides for it. I also did not have the slightest clue as to how *often* the Deuterocanonicals are referenced in the NT. That goes along with all of the rest of the things you mentioned.

I am always very thankful for the many great and true things I learned as an evangelical. Since I critique lots of things within Protestantism, as an apologist, sometimes folks get the completely erroneous impression that I am somehow "anti-Protestant." Not at all: not in the sense that these folks think: as if I think it is a fundamentally "bad" thing. No! It's a good thing (i.e., non-liberal forms of Protestantism) that has some serious errors contained in it, but is mostly incomplete or skeletal, rather than bad through and through.

One proof of that (among many) is the fact that the Protestant publisher, Beacon Hill Press, will be publishing my Quotable Wesley in the fall. I've signed the contract and have already received my advance.

As a former Protestant, I'll admit something. I use to use the "heart" argument a lot myself, but then I eventually saw something. I'd say that worship, the clothes I wore, church selection, and doctrinal differences were okay as long as my heart was right with God. All my friends agreed. But then we'd turn around and condemn Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses -- despite their basing their beliefs on their hearts. I was very inconsistent. Furthermore, I also couldn't find any biblical passage that says everything's up to our individual hearts. Now I see things differently. Now I see that one's heart is only "in the right place" when it's following the biblical standard, and not oneself. Ones own view is what got us kicked out of the Garden.

"in spite of the intensive amount of theology, history and word study that I did, it all lacked the framework that the Church provides for it."

Yes, yes, YES!

This is a supremely important point. Everyone has an "interpretive grid" or framework or set of presuppositions in how they view things. This largely determines what we see, and how much relative attention we give to things. This is where tradition and Church play a crucial role. They show us so often that what we thought was "self-evident" on our own, might indeed be false, and that what we never thought about or noticed much at all, is actually quite important and sometimes even central.

Christianity cannot be, is not, never was -- was never intended to be -- some individualistic thing. It was always communitarian and structured, both in hierarchy and liturgy.

Yet as evangelicals and (the smaller subgroup of) "Jesus people" evangelicals we had this axiomatic assumption of individualism. That came far more from the "Reformation" (so-called) and even more so from (so-called) "Enlightenment" anti-traditionalism and anti-institutionalism and the good ol' rugged American individualistic ideal than it ever came from the Bible or the apostles or early Church. We had adopted the premise prior to approaching the Bible, and then used it as our grid; thus leading in turn to eisegesis on many points (reading into Scripture rather than drawing out of it).

I read more of "Dakes Annotated Reference Notes" than I did the bible back then! Goes to show ya that while I could not swallow the Pope being infallible, I had no problem with Dake being infallible! Or Keith Green, God rest his misinformed soul.

What I can't fathom now, is when some Protestants or Evangelicals say about Catholics "You worship a man" or "You worship the Saints" or "You worship Mary!" But then, they follow Joyce Meyer around the country like panting puppies and other teachers of "the Word" like fan clubs when I was 10 and loved Paul McCartney I thought I'd marry him one day! They chase after these 'charismatic' speakers more than I ever seen Catholics doing...but then I now have sacramental eyes and that's opened a whole new world for me. All people have to be careful not to cling to "people" however, that goes for some Catholics, too, in all fairness, I've encountered some fans of a certain popular alleged Marian apparition that have not been the least bit humble or the least like Mary when I expressed my skepticism. . . .

We've been Catholic now for 8 years and it's the BEST!!! Even with all the problems in the Church, I'd rather be in the barque of Peter than sailing in some man-made little skiff!

We're all prone to following mere men (or women) and building cults around them. There are a number of instances of that among Catholics, with celebrity figures being out of full submission to the Church, yet having rabid followers, who defend them, no mater what. I am thinking of two in particular, but I won't name them, because then we'll see the same nonsense occur right in this thread!

I dared to mention one in a recent post, and it was a free-for-all (since deleted). But I will be refuting this person in the future, again (most likely) and I don't care if people don't like that. They can lump it! It's my duty to refute error, by God's grace. Whether what I write is "popular" or not, has never had the slightest effect on me. I just don't want this great thread to be hijacked and to descend into that kind of silliness.

What do we know about the earliest liturgies and how early do we [have] records of early worship? A reference would be helpful. . . .

We know quite a bit, I think, from biblical indications, and early writings. I would recommend The Mass of the Early Christians , by Mike Aquilina.

Jesus never said to praise him with incense and repeated prayers and solemness and where specific Holy garments are worn and to be in only Latin or a variety of other things that many people use during their worship.

True, but beside the point, because He didn't have to say all these things for them to be true and good. Incense was used in OT worship and is again seen in Revelation, and in, e.g., the gift of frankincense for the infant Jesus. Jesus participated in Temple worship and observed all the Jewish laws: highly ritualized worship in every respect. The Last Supper was a passover meal. So did Paul, and Paul and other apostles attended synagogue worship as well. So these things were assumed. Paul presupposes it when he talks about Christian worship, referring to "the altar" and sacrifice, etc.

Holy garments and items were also long-established in the tradition of Jewish worship, and this continued into the new covenant. Latin is a "sacred language" insofar as it was adopted for worship and liturgical use. At the time, it was widely spoken. But it served the same purpose as Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT). When Greek was widely spoken, they produced the Septuagint. When Latin was universal, St. Jerome's Vulgate, etc.

Repeated prayers were modeled by Jesus Himself (and in the Psalms), as I have written about. Nor does the Bible oppose formality to the heart in worship.

Many people feel more comfortable with what is considered a more traditional style of worship. Something that is quieter and uses a more classical style music and that is fine. there is nothing wrong with that for those who want to worship in that manner. The problem comes when I hear people talk about this is a holy style of music or this is the only way to worship our God.

Well, arguments can be made as to what is appropriate music at Mass. I don't think it has to be classical, but it has to be in line with the purpose of worship. So (to use an absurd example), we would no more play Stravinsky's Rite of Spring at Mass than we would, Rubber Biscuit. Obviously there are matters of aesthetics as well as solemnity in play. We can oppose legalism or judgmentalism without denying that there is good and bad music to be heard at Mass. It's not merely subjective.

That is just ridiculous and only of one opinion.

Excessive legalism is; what I have just noted is not.

This is not just towards Catholics but all of us in Christendom together. How much do any of our services resemble what Jesus did on the hillsides outside of Jerusalem?

That's a non sequitur. Jesus preaching in the fields is not, technically, a Christian service and the facilities for same were not present. It would be similar to John Wesley preaching in the fields in the 18th century. It's not a valid analogy to what a Mass ought to be like.

Think about that.

I did, and have many times in the past!

Did Jesus use sacred artifacts and utensils when he broke bread and multiplied bread and fish and fed the 5000?

Again, this is beside the point. He sanctioned use of same when He worshiped in the Temple and in synagogues. There are "holy items" in the NT as well, such as Paul's handkerchief, that healed people.

* * * * *

And a few more related or somewhat related comments of mine from a Facebook thread today:

I always thought the giant congregations were stupid and little fiefdoms, and said so as an evangelical, too. I would say back then (now 22+ years ago) that the goal is individual spiritual growth, not numerical growth of having ten times more butts in the pews (i.e., if they are attracted to such a huge congregation by the wrong reasons: merely looking for a wife or suchlike). I've never been known to mince words at any time.

When people say organized religion is so lousy, we can reply that it's a Hades of a lot better than disorganized religion.

[Informal or contemporary or non-liturgical worship is] not all bad, as I argued recently. We used to praise and worship God from our hearts in those days. But it's not inherently superior to form or traditional worship. That's where we must hold our ground: the extreme "either/or" legalistic mentality.

I should be careful not to judge people's motives about their music. But I don't like it and it angers me a bit when Christians tout it as the only way to praise God. My cousin accused my Church's worship as being "nothing like the worship of the Bible" yet they insist on music the apostles would have found foreign to the worship service.

Exactly: "the only way . . . " We shouldn't say that the Catholic Mass is the only way, either. We can say we believe it is the best way; the way most rooted in Christian tradition for 2,000 years, but "only" would exclude lots of people who are also sincerely worshiping God: many not knowing any different way in their experience.

As I've always said, we can be both ecumenical and apologetical. There is no self-contradiction there: say we believe that our way is best, but other ways have good in them, too, and ain't all bad. We can do all that without compromising our own principles or beliefs at all.

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 04, 2013 14:59

← Previous 1 2 … 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 … 66 67 Next →

Dave Armstrong's Blog

Dave Armstrong's profile
20 followers

Dave Armstrong isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.